I understand your points but not convinced at all. Railway guys did it right.
For me, the best example is the location=* tag as mentioned before. It is actually used in many fields of knowledge, with different and maybe specific values for each. No namespace was introduced and all values shouldn't be used on all features. Mistakes detection is QA tools job, mappers may be helped by editors but certainly not forced. Goal of such tags isn't to give the feature main character but some precise details. Thus, I'm not sure we should literally add power: or railway: or whatever before usage=* since all features concerned by my proposal and railway one will be tagged with power=* or railway=* +1 with Rainer, if each field of OSM knowledge restrict usage of common terms, we'll run out of keys shortly. All the best *François Lacombe* fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com www.infos-reseaux.com @InfosReseaux <http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux> 2014-12-02 13:02 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein <r...@oudeis.org>: > LS> I agree with you if you say that “usage” > LS> sounds like a very general key and not a railway specific key. So the > LS> railway guys have just been a little faster than the power guys and > LS> “occupied” this key. I would accept this and search another key to > avoid > LS> unnecessary conflicts. I don’t insist in “power:usage”. It can also be > LS> something else, but I would introduce a new key for this. > > "usage" is discouraged because the railway guys already use it. > "network" is discouraged because the bus/cycle guys alread use it. if > this trend continues, we may run out of suitable words in the > english language one day. > > what about "system=*" or "purpose=*"? even prefixed as "power:system", > "pipeline:system"? > > cu > > LS> cu > > LS> Lukas Sommer > > LS> 2014-12-01 23:38 GMT+00:00 François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com > >: > > >> Hi Lukas, > >> > >> I don't like this : railway guys introduced usage without any namespace. > >> Why should power introduce one ? > >> > >> usage=* is a common tag. The proposal isn't introducing power:location > >> instead of location=* even if there is some specific values. > >> > >> Do you agree ? > >> > >> *François Lacombe* > >> > >> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com > >> www.infos-reseaux.com > >> @InfosReseaux <http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux> > >> > >> 2014-12-01 9:31 GMT+01:00 Lukas Sommer <sommer...@gmail.com>: > >> > >>> Maybe we could use a key with a namespace: “power:usage=*” or something > >>> else. Keeping is separate from the railway usage could give us more > >>> clairity. > >>> > >>> Lukas Sommer > >>> > >>> 2014-11-24 15:24 GMT+00:00 François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com > >: > >>> > >>>> Hi Rainer and thank you. > >>>> > >>>> I didn't spend time yet on the update done on the Pipeline proposal > but > >>>> be sure I will. > >>>> > >>>> What were the concern against network=* tag ? > >>>> If they can be avoided with usage=* (or any common key) I'm ok to join > >>>> you to use the same between power transmission and pipelines. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> > >>>> *François Lacombe* > >>>> > >>>> fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com > >>>> www.infos-reseaux.com > >>>> @InfosReseaux <http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux> > >>>> > >>>> 2014-11-24 15:57 GMT+01:00 Rainer Fügenstein <r...@oudeis.org>: > >>>> > >>>>> hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> FL> I knew usage=* and it can be the ideal key to indicate > >>>>> usage=transmission, > >>>>> FL> usage=distribution,... on power lines or power cables. > >>>>> > >>>>> If I'm not mistaken, this key is intended to serve the same purpose > >>>>> as the network=* key is in the pipeline proposal: > >>>>> > >>>>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/PipelineExtension#Pipelines > >>>>> > >>>>> FL> But it is currently and exclusively used for railway tagging. > >>>>> FL> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:usage > >>>>> > >>>>> concerns against using the network=* key have been raised. it would > >>>>> make sense to join forces here and use a common key, be it usage=* or > >>>>> something else. > >>>>> > >>>>> cu > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Tagging mailing list > >>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Tagging mailing list > >>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Tagging mailing list > >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Tagging mailing list > >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org > >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >> > >> > > > > > --- NOT sent from an iPhone > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
