Hi there, I’d like to propose the deprecation of the <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=facility> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=facility> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=facility>railway=facility <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=facility> tag, in agreement with one of the tag’s „inventors“, @rurseekatze.
Please send your comments as a reply to this email or (preferably) as a reply to @rurseekatze’s comment <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/railway-station-as-an-area/104839/84> on the Community Forum where he elaborates on the reasons for the deprecation: > I would suggest abolishing railway=facility. We (mainly Nakaner and I) > introduced this at the time in order to be able to map stations as points on > the one hand and to be able to do queries such as “which station does this > signal belong to” on the other hand. > > railway=facility never really caught on because mapping it was time-consuming > and there was no application back then that used it. I’ve actually never > really used it myself, too. But the main reason might be that the tagging > design was bad: > > I agree with some other comments here that mixing railway=facility with > public_transport=stop_area was not a good idea. This resulted in complex and > confusing tagging like type=public_transport + public_transport=stop_area + > railway=facility for passenger-stations and railway=facility without any > type=* for non-passenger stations (by the way impossible to create intuitive > tagging presets for that). It also resulted in mixing public transport > members such as stop_positions and subway_entrances with features such as the > landuse from a railway operations perspective. > The facility relation duplicates a lot of tags of the railway=station feature. > The facility relation maps one real world feature as two features in OSM, > which is not a good practice. > > Now with the recommendation > <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway=station#:~:text=railway=station%20should%20be%20tagged%20preferably%20as%20an%20area> > to map railway=station as areas (for the infrastructural boundaries), I no > longer see any need for the workaround with railway=facility and propose to > deprecate it. It is just redundant information because the information is > either already mapped at the station area or can be queried with a simple > geometric query without having to maintain a relation and manually adding > each signal (can be a lot in bigger stations). This proposal is also emoji-supported by @stevea and @jimkats. I’d also love to hear your comments on the whole topic of railway station mapping in the same Community Forum discussion <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/railway-station-as-an-area/104839/>. Thanks in advance, gymate PS: Sorry for using a relay email address, I’d like to keep my original one private.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
