This mailing list has been migrated to Mailman 3. This archive will no longer be updated. Messages after 1 February 2020 are missing. Please use the new archive instead.
Diese Mailingliste wurde auf Mailman 3 umgestellt. Dieses Archiv wird nicht mehr länger aktualisiert. Nachrichten nach dem 1. Februar 2020 fehlen. Bitte benutze das neue Archiv.

[openrailwaymap] Is "deelectrified" really a good idea?

Alexander Matheisen AlexanderMatheisen at ish.de
Sat Oct 8 22:35:34 MEST 2016


Am Freitag, den 07.10.2016, 13:07 +0200 schrieb Denis Stein:
> Similar topic, same issue: Can/Shall the lifecycle tagging scheme
> also 
> be used for nodes?
> 
> E.g., near Hamburg Hbf. a node [1] is currently tagged as follows:
> 
> > 
> > railway:disused=switch
> > railway:local_operated=no
> > railway:switch=default
> I would prefer two additional tags:
> 
> > 
> > disused:railway=switch
> > railway:disused=switch
> > railway:local_operated=no
> > railway:switch=default
> > railway=disused
> However, JOSM complains on the usage of "railway=disused" on nodes.

If you want to use lifecycle tagging, then the disused has to be before
the key itself, e.g. disused:railway=switch, not
railway:disused=switch.

So your example should be:

* disused:railway=switch
* disused:railway:local_operated=no
* disused:railway:switch=default

railway=disused for nodes is just wrong because the meaning of
railway=disused is "a disused railway track", not "any type of disused
railway feature".


Regards
Alex
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/attachments/20161008/2142c0bd/attachment.sig>


More information about the Openrailwaymap mailing list