<div dir="ltr">On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 00:24, Warin <<a href="mailto:61sundowner@gmail.com">61sundowner@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><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_-4630789982291531434moz-cite-prefix">On 27/09/19 21:52, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 11:02, Marc Gemis <<a href="mailto:marc.gemis@gmail.com" target="_blank">marc.gemis@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">so disused:amenity=pub ;
building=pub (it looks like a pub);<br>
building:use=house (or is it :usage?)<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Erm, I can't think of any pub I've ever been in or past
that was in a building that<br>
</div>
<div>could be described as looking like a pub. <br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yet some want to identify a disused pub as a pub for navigation
purposes? <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not me. I argued that some buildings have recognizable architectures that are useful</div><div>for navigation, and therefore building=church is still appropriate even if it is no longer</div><div>amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian. Most pubs fall under building=yes</div><div>or perhaps building=house. Some say only building=yes and building=no are</div><div>valid, I disagree.</div><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Possibly the building still carries signage similar to some old
shops that have moved on? <br>
If that is the case then a tag to say that would seem appropriate?
<br>
old_signage=Hillbrook Pub/Thomas Cook/Toys R Us ??</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Maybe. Not something I've considered. But disused:amenity=pub is useful for a pub</div><div>which has closed but still retains the fittings and there's still a possibility it may re-open</div><div>as a pub. Whilst was:amenity=pub is useful where the pub has been converted but <br></div><div>people are led to believe there is a pub there by old data on various review websites.</div><div>That is especially true if the converted pub still uses the pub name as its house name</div><div>(I've mapped a few of those) or retains pub signage because it's a listed building and</div><div>the signage cannot legally be removed (I've mapped one of those and its house name</div><div>is the old pub name, to add to the confusion).</div><div><br></div><div>As for misleading old signage, maybe that's better handled as something like</div><div>not:name=Thomas Cook. We already use not:name to indicate to mappers that</div><div>some sources of information (such as out-of-copyright maps) are incorrect about</div><div>road names. Or maybe we should use old_signage as well as not:name. And, for</div><div> Thomas Cook, maybe also not:shop=travel_agency, but we already have enough to</div><div> send the "OSM does not map history" crowd apoplectic. But the only way to keep them</div><div> happy and attempt to reduce potential mismapping without tags like those is to come</div><div> up with a new API, new changeset tags and editor changes so you get warnings if</div><div>you try to revert something that a mapper has already stated, via a changeset, to</div><div>be wrong. I'd stick with what we have, even if it does cause a little clutching of</div><div>pearls. It also means that data processors can (if they wish) choose to make use</div><div>of tags like was:amenity=pub to present extra information to users.<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Paul</div><div><br></div></div></div>