Re: [openrailwaymap] Is "deelectrified" really a good idea?
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)
Attachments:
- signature.asc (application/pgp-signature — 801 bytes)