[OSM-talk] Keep Mapnik relevant
Andrew Chadwick (mailing lists)
andrewc-email-lists at piffle.org
Tue Jan 13 21:59:37 GMT 2009
Matthias Julius wrote:
> Maybe it is better to use a namespace like
> removed:railway=rail; removed=<date>. This also preserves the type of
+1 for namespace prefixes, +0 for removed: though.
Some of the usual suspects on #osm have been discussing past: and
future: namespaces, the latter for construction works :)
I quite like former: as well, or disused: or abandoned:
name=Bateman Street # loc_name=Batman Street source:loc_name=paint
former:name=East Street # yeah, I know we have old_name too
What about contradictory senses?
name=Shangri-La Towers # Sounds nice.
building=apartments # You could live there.
abandoned:building=apartments # oh, guess not.
loc_name=Fred's Squat # Ah. Less nice.
This sort of thing has a horrid sort of resonance round here:
name=The Blue Grape
disused=<date> # arguably backwards-compatible
and also gets around the fact that you can't drink there any more, but
dumb software thinking you could. And later on, if the building gets
used for something else, you could perhaps change it to:
name=Fred's Wine Gum Emporium
former:name=The Blue Grape # or old_name
former=<date> # ugh, mabye not
Well, it appeals to the stupid, plodding, pattern-seeking part of my
brain, kinda. But the reason you might keep this kind of old guff
hanging around in the database would be to answer queries about old
landmarks people know the old name of but not the new.
More information about the talk