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