Render disused:railway=rail like railway=disused #2030
Comments
|
I think you may actually be seriously mis-interpreting the whole purpose of a "disused:x=y" versus a _"x=disused"_ tag and the concept of the current OpenStreetMap lifecycle tagging proposals. As I understood from e.g. the "Lifecycle prefix" and "Comparison of life cycle concepts" webpages: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix the whole purpose of using "disused:x=y" contrary to using a _"x=disused", is exactly the result you are now getting: _no rendering of features that users have explicitly set to "disused:x=y", so as to avoid showing objects / functions that may have previously existed, but are no longer there. E.g., to better understand this, see the reference to the disused:amenity=pub example, where it would be ludicrous to show a former pub as a pub on the map if it has been converted to e.g. a normal living house or shop. Based on this, I think the current rendering _shouldn't_ be changed, but rather kept. This also means that the disused:railway=rail tag is _not_ a replacement for the railway=disused tag, but rather that these tag should live next to each other, and be used appropriately based on the local mappers desire to show or hide certain disused railways for applications. Of course, if you actually never want to hide these features for applications, you should never use the disused:railway=rail at all. |
|
No, the *=disused tagging is a bad scheme and should not be used. A data consumer shouldn't need to filter out disused objects by checking the disused tag. I think the suggestion by @Penegal makes sense. |
I wasn't responding to the x=disused in general tag, but to the well established and much used railway=disused tagging scheme. I think this tag, in case of the railways, is actually used in the sense of the amenity=pub example in the lifecycle pages, and thus I think what I previously wrote about the disused:railway=rail versus railway=disused is relevant.
It only makes sense if you would _explicitly desire_ to render previous / former functions of objects in openstreetmap-carto / any application, not if you think it is a replacement for railway=disused. E.g. do you suggest to render stuff like disused:amenity=pub and possibly thousands of other disused:x=y objects as well in carto? Of course, as to the specific example of railways, this may be a custom rendering decision made by the openstreetmap-carto team for a special case. There is nothing wrong with that, any rendering of OpenStreetMap data is to a large extent interpretation, but don't make it light-hearted. |
The disused features still exist on the ground and are valuable to show in a map for navigational purposes. |
I never suggested to not render railway=disused, which is the current and most used tag for this. In fact, I suggest quite the opposite, it should be rendered. I only suggest to not render disused:railway=rail, as rendering it is a wrong interpretation of OpenStreetMap lifecycle tagging IMO. If you read carefully, the fact that it "is valuable to show in a map" is exactly why I compared the railway=disused tag with amenity=pub. Contrary to what the disused:x=y tag (e.g. disused:railway=rail or disused:amenity=pub) was designed for, people _actually want to see the_ railway=disused _tag rendered_. In contrast with this, disused:x=y as per the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts page, was actually designed to register a previous function of an object, that should not normally be rendered by default (but could in a specialized renderer targeted at disused objects, which I don't think openstreetmap-carto is...). In addition, since railway=disused uses the main key railway=x (which is also comparable with the amenity=pub example), and not the much more problematic and deprecated disused=yes tag, which uses a secondary key to signify the disused status and thus causes problems with rendering of only a main key, it is also less of a problem to decide whether or not to include it in rendering. You can simply include or exclude the railway=disused class from rendering, contrary to having to examine a secondary key as with the disused=yes deprecated tagging. |
|
@mboeringa ah, thanks for clarifying. |
For start: this is tagging for renderer approach. disused:x=* makes sense to use if disused object is vastly different from one that is not disused. For example shop=florist is POI where one may buy flowers, it is open at some times etc. disused:shop=florist has none of this functions and it is (if at all) used for completely different purposes. With railways situation is different also for additional reason - here railway=disused scheme is widely used (73 176 times) unlike 5594 usages worldwide for disused:railway. In that situation I propose to start from discussion on tagging mailing list and/or with railway mappers whatever using railway:disused instead/in addition to railway=disused is a desirable idea. In that situation starting from rendering is a poor idea. On the other hand I see that OpenRailwayMap is already rendering this tag (I expected opposite), so it may be accepted more than I expected. |
|
sent from a phone
I understand the shop tag as tagging a function: it is not the physical structure (space) tagged like this, but it's the business, someone selling flowers. The tag disused:shop=florist is something I'd maybe use in case the florist has moved/closed but there are still traces (e.g. signage). If there's a different business now in that shop it feels like unnecessary clutter to add references to the history (i.e. what there was before) |
|
Yes, the problem here is that contrary to disused:shop (that now sells something else or nothing), for disused:railway=* the rails do still exist on the ground and can be rendered. Also, we wiki for key:railway itself proposes disused:railway as alternative tagging. |
Which is
Or(!)
railway=disused if you seek to get it rendered and at the same time also register the previous type of the railway. But the rendering should only be based on the railway=disused tag as - as I tried to explain before - rendering based on disused:railway=x is a mis-interpretation of OpenStreetMap lifecycle tagging. Using the disused:railway=x alone as the basis for rendering is really not recommended (unless in some specialized renderer targeted at disused objects). disused:railway=x is not a replacement of railway=disused, these two tags should co-exist. |
That is tagging for renderer - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer Whatever X will be rendered in Y should not influence tagging decisions. |
No, you are still not getting my point. This is not tagging for the renderer. It is putting back the tag that Carto supports in rendering for railway=disused, that may have been replaced by disused:railway=x alone, although people actually want to see it rendered. The whole purpose of a disused:x=y tagging scheme is to hide the feature for current applications, and to register a previous function, see the OpenStreetMap lifecycle tagging page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts QUOTE:
Carto IMO justly does not render disused:railway=x, and justly renders only railway=disused. Both tags should co-exist, and it is up to the local OpenStreetMap community to decide if they want to use one or the other tagging scheme (or double tag with both tags), and thus either decide to show disused railways on the Standard Map - which by far the majority of railway mapping enthusiasts seem to want - or to hide the railways but just have the features in the OSM database for specialized applications targeting disused:x=y tags (like an OpenRailwayMap that seems to support displaying features tagged with disused:railway=x alone according to posts here). It would be tagging for the renderer if people tagged disused:railway=x features additionally with highway=track or waterway=stream or so, to show them on the map... |
That is tagging for renderer - tagging should describe reality, not decide what should be rendered. At this stage that is not yet "Don't deliberately enter data incorrectly for the renderer", but what happens for group that decided to enforce
once somebody adds a correct railway=disused tag? Remove correct tag because they want to change rendering? That would be pure tagging for renderer ("Don't deliberately enter data incorrectly for the renderer"). |
|
Please @matkoniecz, actually start reading and trying to understand all the posts I wrote in this thread instead of letting your emotions reign... I never suggested to "hide the railways" once
In fact, I suggest no changes at all to current Carto rendering! (which is correct in my opinion). I also certainly did not suggest to
However, I do think entering disused:railway=x in the database, and then asking for it to be rendered by Carto, is incorrect, because it violates the OpenStreetMap lifecycle tagging proposal. disused:x=y should only be rendered by specialized sites / styles targeted at disused objects. |
|
sent from a phone
what are you referring to? Surely not this concept: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix |
Yes. Unless you can point me to another page describing disused:railway=x and more generally disused:x=y lifecycle tagging. Yes, the page may be thin in some aspects, but it is better than nothing and does make sense (well, to me at least...) Of course, there is the other page as well: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts |
|
sent from a phone
then I might have misunderstood you: how is that page in contradiction to tagging disused:railway=rail? |
|
sent from a phone
I disagree, the purpose is not to hide those features generally, but to avoid confusion by showing them like an in-use feature when you don't check for (a theoretically infinite list of) additional modifiers that change the meaning of other tags. It is a safety measure to show these different features only if you want to and not by accident. |
It's not. I have tried to explain this: I am not against tagging either railway=disused or disused:railway=rail. Both have their function, they should co-exist. In my opinion though, only railway=disused should be rendered by a general map like Carto, and disused:railway=rail used either as a secondary tag to document and specify the type of the disused railway in the OSM database, or used in specialized renderers / styles that target disused:x=y tagging. |
That is exactly what I wanted to say, but wrote in different words |
|
@mboeringa: I understand your arguments, at least I think so, but I still don't understand why rendering |
|
@Penegal My main objections or points regarding rendering based on disused:railway=x are the following:
Note: for the sake of the argument I am trying to take a completely neutral position / stance here, which isn't easy as I love trains too... but hey, there may be big historic pub lovers too!
railway=disused is very much equivalent to natural=water
Lastly: I don't say there couldn't be an exception for the railway, but personally, I don't see the advantage outweighs the disadvantage of the clash with OpenStreetMap lifecycle tagging. There is very little to gain switching the rendering from railway=disused to disused:railway=x, while there is clearly something to lose (compliance with lifecycle tagging, setting a precedence for many more requests for rendering of disused:x=y in Carto). I just say: think well before making this decision. (and this will be my last ramble about this subject here...) |
OK, so this is where I went lost in your argumentation. Indeed, your point of view makes sense on this: |
|
sent from a phone
I believe it hasn't yet been pointed out that railway=disused is also not a nice tag from a semantic point of view, as the key railway alone does not say "rails" but "railway related", and besides rail has values like platform, level_crossing, signal, station, tram, funicular, monorail, miniature etc. it would be much better if it were railway=disused_rail (or track) Also see common values for the disused key: http://taginfo.osm.org/keys/disused#values |
|
following up on @dieterdreist : Exactly. As far as I understand the documentation the railway=disused is "legal" only for rail-values but not the many other values like station, stop etc. So for a disused railway=station I think it would be more correct to use disused:railway=station than railway=disused . Whether or how such objects should be rendered at all is a different question. |
|
From the data perspective =disused is the same as disused:=*. |
While I agree with everyone else you've said, this bit is incorrect - you are getting confused with railway=abandoned. 😃 That is different to railway=disused which is for tagging a section of railway where the rails and infrastructure is still in place but they are not being used. |
Where in my description, did you see me mentioning anything about the presence or absence of the actual railway tracks (which would determine if it is was possibly abandoned / razed)? I specifically refrained from mentioning the status of tracks being present:
This description still leaves the option open of tracks being present (and I intend it to be read as such ;-), but I recognize that this might have been confusing). |
This is proof that because disused:railway=* is not showing people will not use it, and instead opt for railway=disused because that is rendered. |
Which is exactly my point: people WANT disused railway to render, hence using lifestyle tagging and disused:railway=x is not appropriate. |
|
And why is that not appropriate? It is exactly what the lifecycle prefix is for. The map renders railways and thus using prefixes of railway is not a bad thing. AFAIK the openrailway people are loosing their hair over this thing as they need the railway= value to be a proper one to show what kind of rail to render, even if it is not in use. |
Sorry, I should rephrase to make this clear: "Which is exactly my point: people WANT disused railway to render, hence using lifestyle tagging and disused:railway=x on its own is not appropriate. It needs additional tagging like railway=disused to force rendering if desired."
I think we all will start loosing our hair quickly when people start massively requesting rendering of hundreds of possible disused/abandoned/razed:x=y lifecycle tags... I also do not see what the problem is for the OpenRailwayMap people, if people tag railway=disused & disused:railway=rail, they CAN render the appropriate type because all the information required is there in that case (possibly by setting up a LUA transform during data import). That people are lazy enough to refuse to add the appropriate double tag, is another issue altogether. |
|
People want disused rail to render and because the default renderer is not showing disused:railway= they have to use railway=disused. No idea why you can't see this. Rendering other things with lifecycle prefixes would have to be dealt with on a case by case. The style already render rail of different kinds (disused, preserved) so I don't see why that is an argument here. Having to use multiple tags to describe objects when it has a perfectly valid single tag is not a good thing IMO. |
|
I don't understand. Could you point me to a source where it is documented that railway=disused and disused:railway= are not the exact same thing? The life cycle prefixes are as far as I know exactly a replacement for the existing tags. For example is construction:highway the same as highway=construction and so on Correct me if I'm wrong but you also said that people use disused:railway to tag railways they don't want to have rendered? Can you point me to an example of that and why someone wouldn't wanna render something that's clearly visible on the ground? |
|
The wiki says
While disused pubs are of no importance for OpenStreetMap, disused railways, highways and buildings stand out in reality and hence are of importance to OpenStreetMap and henceforth openstreetmap-carto. Because we would never map for the renderer, the idea that This tagging scheme just provides the possibility of marking specific tags as describing something that was and not blocking the value part of the key value pair (a.k.a. tag). TL;DR: |
|
I appreciate the interesting comments about how disused railways should be tagged, but this is not the best place to discuss how features should be tagged. The tagging mailing list or forum.openstreetmap.org would be good places for discussion. If someone wishes to deprecate railway=disused and replace this tag with disused:railway=* the process is described at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process |
|
sent from a phone
On 24. Sep 2019, at 23:10, mboeringa ***@***.***> wrote:
This description still leaves the option open of tracks being present or not (and I intend it to be read as such ;-) ).
the term “disused” in the OpenStreetMap context implies that the tracks are still there and in a reasonable state. Abandoned also implies the tracks are still there , but in a degenerate state. If you speak explicitly about trackbed as determining characteristics, it seems to imply that the tracks aren’t there anymore.
|
I repeat, I do not agree with this bold statement that they "are the exact same thing". You also contradict yourself in the sense that on the one hand you are saying that railway=disused and disused:railway=x are the exact same thing, but on the other hand you recognize that only the disused:railway=x tag provides the additional information about the type of the railway ("to show what kind of rail to render"). This observation by yourself clearly demonstrates these tags are not "the exact same thing", even in your own view.
The lifecycle page here explicitely states one of the main purposes of the lifecycle prefixes: Quote: Although this sentence clearly does not explicitly state that lifecycle prefixed objects should not be rendered, it does raise the important question that only the openstreetmap-carto developers can answer: Does openstreetmap-carto need to become, or is it desirable for it to become, a "software aware of this tagging concept"?? I think it will open up a potential can of worms with a plethora of similar discussions like this one in the repository about the desirability of rendering any lifecycle prefixed objects. Just one example of a similar discussion already posted here about disused power lines: #3608. I personally would prefer to see these lifecycle objects rendered dynamically as an extra layer on top of a rendered map, similar to e.g. http://openpoimap.org/, but that requires adjustments to the OpenStreetMap website.
That is your personal opinion. There may well be someone interested in the history of a region who is interested in locations of disused historic pubs. In fact, I have heard about one project that exactly did this: try to extract locations of historic (disused / abandoned / razed) pubs from OpenStreetMap data for the publication of a book about a town's history. |
|
Am Mi., 25. Sept. 2019 um 01:22 Uhr schrieb Nick Name <
notifications@github.com>:
While disused pubs are of no importance for OpenStreetMap, disused
railways, highways and buildings stand out in reality and hence are of
importance to OpenStreetMap and henceforth openstreetmap-carto.
a disused pub is not an amenity=pub anymore, but a disused building is
still a building=*, context and semantics matter. Physical "things" remain
regardless of being actually used or not, "abstract" things like businesses
and services aren't there anymore when "disused". To decide an individual
case it must be clear what the tags represent.
Taking the example of railway=rail, I just learnt from the wiki it means
"trains" ;-) (I'm fixing this now)
Use railway <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:railway>=rail for
full sized passenger or freight trains in the standard gauge for the
country or state.
Or according to the short definition, it means rails:
Rails of a standard gauge track
So logically and from the wiki, disused railway tracks could well be
railway=rail disused=yes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:railway%3Drail
Or it could be railway=disused disused=rail or disused:railway=rail
(synonymous), for example if the legal status also should be accounted for
(and they aren't legally active rails anymore).
|
This issue is not about that, but the fact that carto do not render disused:railway=* as railway=disused if the latter is missing. |
As @jeisenbe already said: Please stop discussing tagging questions here. There are exactly two ideas w.r.t. disused railways we could discuss here:
The latter is currently out of the question given the use numbers presented. The former would of course be an option but i would suggest to open a new issue for that if you think it is a serious consideration. As @jeisenbe explained the idea of rendering both tags as synonyms would not be compatible with the goals of this style. |
This is exactly why new tags are never/slowly adopted. People running this seem to be unable to accept new tags before they have very high usage, thus causing people to use older tagging to make the object render. |
I thought this style was meant for mappers espacially. So displaying commonly used tags and tags that the cummunity has agreed upon. |
|
I completely understand that there are people who would like to see this style take a more active role in steering mappers to map the 'right' way. But trying to initiate such a change in overall direction by lobbying for making individual changes against established and documented goals is not going to work. Discussions of ideas for overall policy changes are welcome (in a separate issue of course) as long as they focus on generic arguments and are not just pushed as an instrument to facilitate specific individual changes. |
It is a misconception to think of lifecycle tags as being a "new" way to tag things, it is an additional attribute of an object instead. The ultimate consequence of such reasoning would be that we would need drop all existing tags and to introduce a whole new lifecycle prefix for all OpenStreetMap tags, e.g. something named like "current", to denote that objects are current and in active use according to tag: current:amenity=pub I hope you agree this is absolutely ludicrous. I would also like to suggest to both of you, as more sensible solution, to post a request at the iD and JOSM editor repositories, to have presets added for automated double tagging of railway=disused with an additional disused:railway=x tag, which probably should default to disused:railway=rail, as that is almost certainly the most common tag. This is a far more logical step to take at this point in time. |
|
Now you're being a silly nitpicker. Where is "current" mentioned? Double tagging is a terrible idea and is the whole reason to use only prefix. |
|
I would have to dive deeper in on who initiated the life cycle prefixes and what their intention was. But from the documentation it's meant to unify tagging life cycles. Is it that big of a ressource problem to add the life cycle variants for tags? |
|
Please, if anyone would like to replace railway=disused with disused:railway=*, the place to do that would be at a wider, tagging-oriented discussion like the tagging mailing list. To deprecate a tag there is a process at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process - if the proposal is approved, then first it would be best to request that editors like JOSM support the newly approved tag. This has more influence than what tags are rendered in this style. I've searched through the history of the relevant wiki pages, and from what I can tell the This is not the place to change common ways of tagging features, but as I said above, we will happily reopen this issue if the wider Openstreetmap community decides to use |
|
Am Mi., 25. Sept. 2019 um 12:19 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann <
notifications@github.com>:
I completely understand that there are people who would like to see this
style take a more active role in steering mappers to map the 'right' way.
IMHO this is already what the style does. The project goal to act against
tag fragmentation and support only one tag for one thing, even if the
competing tag is used in significant numbers, is an example for this active
role that osm-carto plays in the tagging discussion.
|
|
The most surprising fact for me is that @imagico is the most active person doing this (and trying to make it even more than it is today)... Christoph, I don't understand your position, it does not look consistent to me, what did you mean? |
There is no such rule in our goals, and if you mean "helps to prevent unfavorable fragmentation of tag use", it does not imply that. |
|
I would be happy to discuss issues raised here - both related to meaning of tags and more general strategy and properties of this map style or process of influencing tagging. But all of that is either offtopic here because it does not belong to an issue tracker or is more general than this specific issue. How to handle competing tag schemes and at which point new scheme duplicating older one should be supported can be discussed but I think that it would be better to not hide discussion on this issue and base it on wider number of cases. |
|
Could you please open specific ticket then to separate the problems as much as you see it'd be useful? |
|
As already said - if anyone wants to discuss changing overall goals and policy of this style this is welcome but there is a right place for that - which is not here, in a closed issue on a specific rendering question. |
Hello, there. Hope you're not growing tired of my suggestions 😉
Shouldn't we render
disused:railway=raillikerailway=disused? This new scheme seems to be expanding, but, as the default rendering does not render them, it doesn't support wide adoption by naive contributors, which may think "It does not display if I tag it that way, only if tagged the old way, so let's go with the old way". Besides, not rendering it means that disused railways converted to the new scheme are no longer rendered, which seems a regress to me: this feature is often an important landmark when present.Regards.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: