On Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:18:27 +0100 Lester Caine <les...@lsces.co.uk> wrote:
> On 15/09/15 08:42, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > >> If it wasn't clear already, railway=dismantled, end_date, or any > >> > system that mixes past and present in the same namespace is IMHO > >> > not acceptable. > > > > I agree that end_date is not a desirable way to add stuff. > > > > railway=dismantled on the other hand is not a past feature, it is a > > dismantled railway now, in the present. In the past it was a > > railway=rail etc. > > The crux of the problem here is 'end_date' and if it is to be > supported or not. I'm perfectly happy that features which exist on > the ground need to be documented, and even having removed the tracks, > a rail bed is still a substantial structure which can be reused or > robbed out. The use of the name 'Abandoned Railway' on a cycle track > is an alternate compromise, so it is just breaks which we are > discussion here. end_date (as in - tagging completely removed building as something like [building=temple; end_date=356 BC; name=Temple of Artemis]) is completely unacceptable and extremely hostile toward anybody using OSM data. railway=dismantled may be or may not be a good idea but at least it is not railway=rail with rare tag telling that it is something completely else (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Mateusz%20Konieczny/diary/35702 for longer description of this problem) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
