Display disused:railway=* and abandoned:railway=* like railway=disused/abandoned whenever relevant

[Penegal]

Hello, there.

The lifecycle prefixes are spreading, but JOSM doesn't really take them into account, which is a shame, as this slows down the correct tagging and modelling using this tagging scheme. The first example which bothers me concerns railways: JOSM should display them like railway=disused/abandoned; of course, not all disused:railway=* and abandoned:railway=* should be rendered this way, only the ones about tracks:

current tag	tags to be displayed the same way
railway=disused	disused:railway=funicular|miniature|monorail|narrow_gauge|preserved|rail|tram|subway|light_rail
railway=abandoned	abandoned:railway=funicular|miniature|monorail|narrow_gauge|preserved|rail|tram|subway|light_rail

This could be applied to other lifecycle prefixes, as construction:railway=* and *:highway=*; I will try to make the list if this is needed or to start the debate if one is required, but these railway tags are the most bothering me, so I start with them. Of course, these lifecycle prefixes should be taken into account in the whole code, for example in the validator, as a partial support would probably accentuate the problem rather than solving it.

I must add that I looked for previous requests regarding the lifecycle prefixes, without results; that surprised me, as this tagging scheme is spreading rather quickly now. I could have simply missed these requests, so don't hit too hard if I failed to locate them…

Regards.

[Klumbumbus]

I'm not really sure about this. Looking at the rail related values of disused:railway=* at taginfo ​http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/disused:railway#values we have:

• 1706 rail
• 294 tram
• 182 narrow_gauge
• 26 subway

the rest is below 20.
The numbers seem a bit low to me for an established tagging schema of rails. (Compare 75177 railway=disused)

The wikipages also state to use disused:railway together with railway=disused.

So should disused:railway just be an additional optional tag of railway=disused?

Any more opinions?

[Penegal]

Well, I ​asked on the tagging mailing list, and opinions are mixed: some consider that railway=disused is unnecessary when using disused:railway=* — which is my opinion, as it is redundant –, and others consider useful to maintain both tags, either for backward compatibility or by using disused:railway=* like disused=*. Including the new tags in the style in addition of the older ones wouldn't break displaying for anyone, and would even improve it for whose having the first opinion.

[Klumbumbus]

see also #16093

[gaben]

Up!

Replying to Klumbumbus:

So should disused:railway just be an additional optional tag of railway=disused?

Any more opinions?

I opt for replacement for two reasons:

1. Using the above example, railway=disused don't tell anything about the track, or some can say there is information loss by using a JOSM disused track preset (current state).
2. As a data consumer, there is no added information by using disused:railway together with railway=disused.