[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Wed Oct 21 21:13:54 BST 2009

Dave F.:
>> However, I believe that using a common key instead of
>> disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using
>> different *values* would have been the better alternative.
> Common Key? Can you give an example?
> If you mean status=disused, I'm not sure how that get around the problem 
> of ignoring all other keys.

Yes, I mean status=*, and I'm aware that it doesn't avoid the problem -
however, the problem would have to be solved only once for all possible
status values. A check for status will filter out objects with e.g.
status=planned, too, even if only construction, disused and abandoned
were known when status was introduced. A check for c./d./a.=yes will not
filter out planned=yes, thus increasing the required effort for
monitoring tagging trends and adapting applications.

Therefore, I'd consider a common key an improvement, but of course the
problem of ignoring keys would still exist.

The problem could only be avoided completely by using things like
disused_KEY = VALUE
KEY = disused + disused = VALUE,
but the widespread use of disused/...=yes seems to demonstrate that not
all mappers like these.

The idea was that maybe the common key approach could be some kind of
compromise. As I said, though, I don't believe that an attempt to
establish an alternative to disused=yes could be successful.

Tobias Knerr

More information about the talk mailing list