On 29 May 2009, at 08:34, Sebastian Schwarz wrote: > Hi! > > Thomas Wood wrote: > >> One concern I have (and one that's probably been expressed many >> times on talk@ etc) is the use of disused=*, rather than adjusting >> the 'primary' tag on the feature. (eg, railway=disused >> disused=light_rail etc) > > Yes, this may be the better way to handle disused railways; but what > about disused railways which "suddenly" become reactivated again? With > railway=disused and disused=light_rail, the mapper would have to > delete the latter tag or assign the value "no" to it and to assign > another value to the former tag. Whereas with railway=* and > disused=yes, the mapper just would have to to delete the latter tag or > assign the value "no" to it. >
It is not backwards compatible with all software and routing out there. It dramatically increases the number of rules required in the renderers, to determine if it is a valid railway, thus won't be implemented. Adding the abandoned tag completely changes the meaning, rather than giving you addition information about that bit or road or rail. If you are really worried about mappers, why not use railway=disused_light_rail, or railway=abandoned_rail. i.e. prefix disused, abandoned etc. to the beginning of the value. Shaun _______________________________________________ Talk-transit mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-transit
