<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 00:53, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">disused:*=* means it cannot presently be used for its intended
purpose. That does not mean it does not exist.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Correct.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix"> How renders chose
to display that is up to them. <br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Also correct (sadly).<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">
But the tagging is correct and truthful.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Using disused=yes is correct and truthful. Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO correct and truthful.</div><div>Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix"> Choosing another tag
because it renders the way desired is not a good thing. <br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Only because the behaviour is not guaranteed across renderers or even over time for a single</div><div>renderer. However, choosing one correct and truthful tag over an alternative correct and</div><div>truthful tag because of how it renders in one renderer is not wrong (even though some may</div><div>consider it unwise).</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
For those who use disused=yes because it renders .. are you
equally happy to have amenity=toilet rendered when it has
disused=yes on it??? <br>
How about a pub, atm etc etc... <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You mean like the toilet near me that has been shut down because the council can't afford to run it</div><div>but which a local non-profit organization hopes to take over and re-open? The building still</div><div>exists, but if i use disused:building=yes it vanishes from standard carto. It's no longer being</div><div>used as a toilet but may be in the future, but if I add disused=yes then the toilet symbol renders</div><div>so people turning up there with full bladders are going to be upset.</div><div><br></div><div>Or how about the many disused quarries near me? They still exist. They are visible. Some<br></div><div>of them pose a hazard. If I use disused:landuse=quarry they vanish from standard carto.<br></div>
<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Renders need to distinguish between active features and those no
longer in service, but</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> still existing. That is a rendering issue
not a tagging issue.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>How could renderers tell the difference unless the tagging informs them? One way would</div><div>be for them to render only physical objects in the disused namespace, so that<br></div><div> building:disused=yes renders but disused:amenity=toilets does not get a toilet symbol.</div><div>That leaves a problem if somebody uses building=yes + amenity=toilets + disused=yes,</div><div>although that's still possible for a renderer to figure out. However, many renderers do</div><div>not currently make those distinctions.<br></div><div><br></div><div>The other way is that renderers agree to support a tagging convention that disused:foo=bar</div><div>suppresses rendering but disused=yes does not (standard carto is ahead of the game here).</div><div><br></div><div>There ARE cases where disused objects should be rendered and there ARE cases where they</div><div>should not. We SHOULD have a tagging convention that at least one major renderer supports</div><div>so that we can control this. Mostly it seems that disused physical objects should render</div><div>but disused properties should not, although that may not always be the case, so two</div><div>ways of tagging disused objects leaves the decision up to the mapper rather than relying</div><div>on a heuristic that may sometimes be wrong.<br></div><div><br></div>
Moaning that we have two tags used to do the same thing which mappers choose between</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">because of rendering isn't helpful. Warning that those choices may be incorrect in different</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">renderers, or may suddenly stop behaving in the expected way in standard carto is better.</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">A documented agreement with (at least standard) carto on expected behaviour that allows</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">disused objects to be rendered correctly would be best of all. Except this is OSM and we</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">don't do joined-up thinking.<br></div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">-- <br></div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix">Paul</div><div class="gmail-m_-4024231442169510653moz-cite-prefix"><br></div></div></div>