I wonder if we should retire the "deelectrified" tag entirely. I think it's simply a bad idea. There is the abandoned-namespace that we already use for the type of rail and similar things, so why not use abandoned:electrified=*? This has the advantage that we can also use e.g. abandoned:voltage and abandoned:frequency. Taginfo shows that deelectrified has slightly more usages than abandoned:electrified: 514 vs. 466. Changing this now isn't that hard I guess…
Greetings,
Eike
Hi,
Am 2016-08-29 um 21:46 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
I wonder if we should retire the "deelectrified" tag entirely. I think it's simply a bad idea. There is the abandoned-namespace that we already use for the type of rail and similar things, so why not use abandoned:electrified=*? This has the advantage that we can also use e.g. abandoned:voltage and abandoned:frequency.
deelectrified=* was added to the wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging) by YamaOfParadise about two years ago. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=OpenRailwayMap%2FTagging&am...
YamaOfParadies, could you explain why you chose this tag? Or did you just add it to document its usage?
I myself think that using the lifecycle prefix scheme is a good idea.
Best regards
Michael
Am Mittwoch, 31. August 2016, 14:53:02 schrieb Michael Reichert:
Hi,
Am 2016-08-29 um 21:46 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
I wonder if we should retire the "deelectrified" tag entirely. I think it's simply a bad idea. There is the abandoned-namespace that we already use for the type of rail and similar things, so why not use abandoned:electrified=*? This has the advantage that we can also use e.g. abandoned:voltage and abandoned:frequency.
deelectrified=* was added to the wiki page (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OpenRailwayMap/Tagging) by YamaOfParadise about two years ago. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=OpenRailwayMap%2FTagging&am... pe=revision&diff=1070191&oldid=1069876
YamaOfParadies, could you explain why you chose this tag? Or did you just add it to document its usage?
I myself think that using the lifecycle prefix scheme is a good idea.
Just to have that archived: YamaOfParadies agreed on using the lifecycle prefixes on IRC. We'll have to update the wiki.
Eike
Am Donnerstag, 22. September 2016, 19:47:00 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
Am Mittwoch, 31. August 2016, 14:53:02 schrieb Michael Reichert:
Hi,
Am 2016-08-29 um 21:46 schrieb Rolf Eike Beer:
I wonder if we should retire the "deelectrified" tag entirely. I think it's simply a bad idea. There is the abandoned-namespace that we already use for the type of rail and similar things, so why not use abandoned:electrified=*? This has the advantage that we can also use e.g. abandoned:voltage and abandoned:frequency.
I have changed the wiki for German and English. Please update the other languages if you are able to do that, I am not.
And, of course: if you added tags with deelectrified, then please update them in the OSM database.
Eike
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) ?
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:*=*
Eike
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
Dear all,
Am 26.09.2016 um 17:24 schrieb Michael Reichert:
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. :-)
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.
I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Kind regards,
Denis.
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/3105955520
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
Dear all,
Am 08.10.2016 um 22:35 schrieb Alexander Matheisen:
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
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".
Ok, I see. And how should I tag disused/abandoned turntables correctly?
[1] uses:
disused turntable railway disused
[2, 3] uses (latter one for abandoned):
disused yes railway turntable
Considering the life cycle, the "best" tagging might be:
disused:railway=turntable [abandoned:railway=turntable]
Right?
Kind regards,
Denis.
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172383072
[2] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/314900683
[3] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/217164488
Am Montag, den 10.10.2016, 22:34 +0200 schrieb Denis Stein:
Ok, I see. And how should I tag disused/abandoned turntables correctly?
[1] uses:
disused turntable railway disused
this is wrong for the same reason as described in an earlier post: railway=disused should be used for tracks, not disused railway features in general.
[2, 3] uses (latter one for abandoned):
disused yes railway turntable
This is not wrong, but not the best solution. This disused=yes stuff was established tagging before the lifecycle tagging appeared. But today this tagging is deprecated and should be retagged using the lifecycle schema in my opinion. But this schema is still in use.
Considering the life cycle, the "best" tagging might be:
disused:railway=turntable [abandoned:railway=turntable]
Right?
Correct.
Regards Alex
Dear all,
When trying to update [1] according to your feedback (i.e., leaving disused:railway=turntable as the only tag) JOSM complains/warns, that this way might have no properties ("Merkmale").
Shall I upload with this only tag nevertheless?
Kind regards,
Denis.
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172383072
Am 12.10.2016 um 01:16 schrieb Alexander Matheisen:
Am Montag, den 10.10.2016, 22:34 +0200 schrieb Denis Stein:
Ok, I see. And how should I tag disused/abandoned turntables correctly?
[1] uses:
disused turntable railway disused
Considering the life cycle, the "best" tagging might be:
disused:railway=turntable [abandoned:railway=turntable]
Correct.
Dear all,
Do you have any recommendations to solve the (JOSM) tagging problem for disused turntables (details see below)?
Kind regards,
Denis.
Am 12.10.2016 um 12:38 schrieb Denis Stein:
Dear all,
When trying to update [1] according to your feedback (i.e., leaving disused:railway=turntable as the only tag) JOSM complains/warns, that this way might have no properties ("Merkmale").
Shall I upload with this only tag nevertheless?
Kind regards,
Denis.
[1] https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/172383072
Am 12.10.2016 um 01:16 schrieb Alexander Matheisen:
Am Montag, den 10.10.2016, 22:34 +0200 schrieb Denis Stein:
Ok, I see. And how should I tag disused/abandoned turntables correctly?
[1] uses:
disused turntable railway disused
Considering the life cycle, the "best" tagging might be:
disused:railway=turntable [abandoned:railway=turntable]
Correct.
Hi Denis,
Am 18.10.2016 um 17:39 schrieb Denis Stein:
Do you have any recommendations to solve the (JOSM) tagging problem for disused turntables (details see below)?
Kind regards,
Denis.
Am 12.10.2016 um 12:38 schrieb Denis Stein:
Dear all,
When trying to update [1] according to your feedback (i.e., leaving disused:railway=turntable as the only tag) JOSM complains/warns, that this way might have no properties ("Merkmale").
disused:railway=turntable (maybe with area=yes to make easier for applications to decide if something is an area [2]) is everything you need. The complain by JOSM is not justified. I suggest you to file a bug report (is possible without account).
https://josm.openstreetmap.de/
Best regards
Michael
[2] Insert rant here.
openrailwaymap@openrailwaymap.org
-
Alexander Matheisen -
Denis Stein -
Mauro Costantini -
Michael Reichert -
Rolf Eike Beer