Matthias Julius wrote: > Maybe it is better to use a namespace like > removed:railway=rail; removed=<date>. This also preserves the type of > railway.
+1 for namespace prefixes, +0 for removed: though. Some of the usual suspects on #osm have been discussing past: and future: namespaces, the latter for construction works :) I quite like former: as well, or disused: or abandoned: name=Bateman Street # loc_name=Batman Street source:loc_name=paint former:name=East Street # yeah, I know we have old_name too What about contradictory senses? name=Shangri-La Towers # Sounds nice. building=apartments # You could live there. abandoned:building=apartments # oh, guess not. loc_name=Fred's Squat # Ah. Less nice. This sort of thing has a horrid sort of resonance round here: disused:amenity=pub name=The Blue Grape disused=<date> # arguably backwards-compatible and also gets around the fact that you can't drink there any more, but dumb software thinking you could. And later on, if the building gets used for something else, you could perhaps change it to: shop=candy name=Fred's Wine Gum Emporium former:amenity=pub former:name=The Blue Grape # or old_name former=<date> # ugh, mabye not Well, it appeals to the stupid, plodding, pattern-seeking part of my brain, kinda. But the reason you might keep this kind of old guff hanging around in the database would be to answer queries about old landmarks people know the old name of but not the new. -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
