Proposal talk:Deprecate railway=preserved

Use this page to discuss the proposal

Show the decline of railway=preserved in the rationale

Resolved: Done!

Pictures tell a thousand words; I would add a scaled down image of this to the rationale. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps propose using the appropriate template

Resolved: Done!

There is a template for deprecated features. Perhaps this should be suggested in the proposal? I've put it here on a sub-page as an example. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

For now, I was thinking of using `{{Ambox|type=warning|text=The use of this tag is discouraged, use ... instead.}` as used in amenity=swimming_pool because it's no yet deprecation but discouragement of usage. Am I making sense?

It may be too early for the deprecation template, but the wording in it makes sense because it completely matches what is proposed. What do others think?

(One thing that nudged me to the deprecation template is that Template:Discouraged links there.) --JeroenHoek (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good, but deprecate instead

Resolved: Done!

Since the community clearly prefers the new tagging, I agree that we should prefer that variant! However, please explicitly deprecate the old tagging so we don't create a dual-tagging scheme, and don't use weasel words like "discourage", so we don't end up in a waterway=riverbank vs water=river situation again! --ZeLonewolf (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Over namespacing and Prefix fooling

This seems to be a rather half-baked proposal. And it could be easily enhanced. The proposed solution "railway:preserved=yes" is a typical case of Over namespacing and Prefix fooling (see there). Plus: What is the meaning of "railway:preserved=no|both"? I see the issue of adding more aspects. So, if you want to differentiate construction aspects like "narrow-gauge" create a secondary tag (similar to cuisine which is a secondary tag to restaurants). --Geonick (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2021‎ (UTC)

This proposal is not an attempt to establish a new tagging standard; it seeks to deprecate railway=preserved in favour of the current de facto standard of railway:preserved=yes. If you feel railway:preserved=yes is not a good tag, you could consider drafting a proposal that replaces it. --JeroenHoek (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea

I have no specific comment except that the proposal looks fine, thank you --Gileri (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Why was the Proposal cancelled?

Hi Could someone please provide a /brief/ summation as to why some would consider "namespacing railway would be a suboptimal solution"? I tried reading the mailing list discussion to understand but lost the will to live. To me, it seems like `railway=rail + railway:preserved=yes` is a straight swap.

I see no reason why "no direct responses from the OpenRailwayMap-ML" makes it "impossible to progress this proposal any further". They don't rule over tagging schemas. --DaveF63 (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2022 (UTC) @Kmpoppe

Hi Dave,

thanks for your question. As much as you lost the will to live while reading the tagging-ML, imagine me reacting to what Geonick writes above in the most disrespectful way I have been ever approached by someone from the community.

I was hoping for a response from the ORM-ML because it was _mainly_ their use-case as a map for railway infrastructure that would have been impacted by any tagging changes. I wasn't thinking of them as an authoritiy over anything railway-related, but without any feedback (and again, the reactions I did receive) my motivation to engage any further in the field of proposing taggings quickly dissolved.

Personal reasons that happened in May 2021 contributed to that as well, and I have resorted to what I do best, programming "stuff" that is used by people actually appreciating my work and giving constructive feedback.

If you feel that this proposal is actually a good idea I appreciate that. If it's in your capabilities to resurrect this slightly zombified proposal, I'd be very grateful.

--Kai M. Poppe (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

OSM Carto no longer renders railway=preserved

Since June 2024, the OSM Carto style does not render the tag railway=preserved, and only railway:preserved=yes is rendered for the specific types of railway=* values. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiddewie (talk • contribs) 12:26, 15 June 2024‎

+1, Good excuse to revive this proposal. --ManuelB701 (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)