Hm. I think the railway guys have a clearly defined list of possible values (there are 6 possible values in the wiki). This way software can process the data, because it is known which values are valid and which not. Checking this would be much more difficult (for data comsumers, but also for editors like JOSM or iD) if the list is less clear.
We have 330 361 elements with the “usage” key in the database. Almost all of them (329 036) are combined with the “railway” key, so this is the current state in the database. I agree with you if you say that “usage” sounds like a very general key and not a railway specific key. So the railway guys have just been a little faster than the power guys and “occupied” this key. I would accept this and search another key to avoid unnecessary conflicts. I don’t insist in “power:usage”. It can also be something else, but I would introduce a new key for this. cu Lukas Sommer 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
