Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

> > how could you change the definition of an undocumented tag? > Easy. It happens all the time, you just never hear about it. ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 22:10, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But if you want to change the definition how could you change the definition of an undocumented tag? Cheers Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org htt

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

Since the tag has already been used 20k times, it is ok to make a page which documents how the tag is currently being used by most mappers. But if you want to change the definition Or other wiki pa a, or recommended use of any tags, then you should use the proposal process. - Joseph Eisenbweg On

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

sent from a phone > On 24. Aug 2020, at 20:58, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > So, how to go on from here? My proposal stands. you should follow the proposal process as delineated in the wiki. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process i.e. set up a page in the proposal

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

So, how to go on from here? My proposal stands. To substantiate this, I found on taginfo, that network:short is actually in usage: 21k (btw. network:long: 34) I saw, that there are votes, but I'm totally New to the tagging mailing list.. Regards Michael_

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

sent from a phone > On 23. Aug 2020, at 21:52, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > But this does not reflect current practice. > I have randomly checked bus relations in Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne and Munich > and found, that the practice comes very different. > Some without abbreviation,

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

But this does not reflect current practice. I have randomly checked bus relations in Berlin, Hamburg, Cologne and Munich and found, that the practice comes very different. Some without abbreviation, some without, the next as a mix. I have found network:short, like I proposed and even network:long.

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

sent from a phone > On 22. Aug 2020, at 11:05, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > But I prefer the short version and am tagging it.. the general rule is “no abbreviations” and shortenings will make collisions much more probable... Cheers Martin _

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

Ok, if that's the popular opinion, I will concur. But I prefer the short version and am tagging it.. Regards Michael___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

A similar problem was fixed for brands by adding the key brand:wikidata . Maybe a key like network:wikidata could be introduced. Or, if the network has no wikidata, just use operator and operator:wikidata. __

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

On 21.08.20 14:30, Michael Schmidt via Tagging wrote: Maybe for all these options the network tag could look like network=* network:short=* network:district=* network:district:short=* network:state=* network:state:short=* network:national=* network:national:short=* Hi, In my opinion, this infor

Re: [Tagging] Network-tag needs extension

sent from a phone > On 21. Aug 2020, at 14:33, Michael Schmidt via Tagging > wrote: > > OK, in this case I must tag the state network twice - for LSB and SKV... > > What do you think about that? I would prefer the long version (less duplicates of different entities) and just a single tag