[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
> railway.

+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.

Andrew Chadwick

More information about the talk mailing list