GeoJSON export about overpass-turbo HOT 3 CLOSED

Yes, the current situation is sub-optimal. My main objection against "flat" feature-properties was the following: properties.type specifies the OSM datatype (node/way/relation), but there exists also the tag "type" which would have to be stored in the same field.

I can think of two possible solutions:

1. namespace all tags to something like tag:<tagname> (or more concise: #<tagname>)
2. namespace the "meta" information osm:id, osm:type (or more concise: @<whatever>)

I like approach No. 2 better, even though there could be an OSM-object with a tag @id conflicting with the feature's meta data... (this would be quite unlikely and isn't the case now - andoverpass-turbo could always escape a trailing @ for this special corner-case ).

from overpass-turbo.

I've just pushed approach No. 2 to master.

You can try it out at http://overpass-turbo.eu/master/

from overpass-turbo.

works for me, great. Thanks!

from overpass-turbo.