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

[Michael Reichert]

Hi Mauro,

Am 2016-09-26 um 12:41 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
> Am 2016-09-26 12:24, schrieb Mauro Costantini:
>> Thank you so much.
>> Btw, in the same manner, should we move from "railway=abandoned" (wich
>> told nothing about the type of the railway) to the newer tagging
>> scheme "abandoned:railway=*" in order to be consistent with the
>> namespaces life cycle perefixes (and mantain the information about the
>> railway's type) ?
> 
> That is already what we do, in some way.
> 
> Active: railway=rail;*=*
> <here comes the bulldozer>
> Removed: railway=abandoned;abandoned:railway=rail;abandoned:*=*

abanoned:railway=* (aka lifecycle tagging scheme) competes with the
tagging used for non-operational roads (e.g. highway=construction +
construction=motorway). OpenRailwayMap currently tries to support
tagging scheme and I think that we should not force anyone to move from
one tagging scheme to another also it is better in the case of a
cycleway or road built on a former railway track (and the road currently
being closed due to construction works).

In future (future means many months, not many years), OpenRailwayMap
could enforce adding abandoned:railway=* or abandoned=* (and the same
for disused, construction etc.) to get the features rendered. We did
this already with usage=* (tracks without usage tag get rendered really
late) and railway:signal:direction. We just have to inform mappers a
while beforehand to prevent to much anger. :-)

Best regards

Michael


-- 
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/attachments/20160926/da38f6e5/attachment.sig>