<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/2/20 10:45 am, Paul Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOKJbsykobngV0mwwvJ__waPSJjM8qo4JJX6xHegW0h7=Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey <<a
href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true">andrew.harvey4@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 dir="ltr"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>I disagree with the whole premise. To me both
building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes means
exactly the same thing and should be interpreted the
same way. </div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But they AREN'T. The way you suggested was the correct
way to tag a ruined</div>
<div>building DOES NOT RENDER. And you never even noticed,
you just made a</div>
<div>blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon
your incorrect</div>
<div>assumption.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>The choice of one tag over another above is base on one thing:
does it render the way wanted. <br>
</p>
<p>Is the desired solution to have life cycle prefixes ignored by
renders so a ruined thing is rendered the same as non ruined
things? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Let say a hospital has collapsed. <br>
</p>
<p>The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag
damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital. <br>
</p>
<p>So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully
functional hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want. <br>
</p>
<p>You cannot now say that it should be tagged another way because
it is a hospital, why would the rules change from one object to
another? <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from
fully functional things. <br>
</p>
<p>Personally I don't mind that some things are not rendered by the
standard map, there is a lot on it now. Keeping everyone happy is
not possible. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>And, by the way... I do know it does not render. And I don't care
if it renders or not... I tag what I see as truth. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOKJbsykobngV0mwwvJ__waPSJjM8qo4JJX6xHegW0h7=Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<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 dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div>You can't say on one is when you want it rendered
on the map and one to hide it. That's essentially a
render=yes/no tag, which I don't think has any place
in OSM.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Really? Explain to me the difference between
building=yes + disused:amenity=place_of_worship and
building=yes. Both</div>
<div>render as buildings. Neither render as a place of
worship. One has additional</div>
<div>information that is of use to people. If you have your
way, I can and WILL</div>
<div> decide whether or not something should render as a place
of worship by the</div>
<div> presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that
tagging will be</div>
<div>entirely correct and match reality on the ground. You
just want me to</div>
<div>tag in a way that loses information. I see no merit in
that.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>The tagging should not decide what is rendered. It is the render
that decides what is rendered.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>amenity=place_of_worship says there is an active place of worship
here.</p>
<p>disused:amenity=place_of_worship says there is a non active place
of worship here.</p>
<p>Where is the loss of information? None in the tagging. If you
want the render to show a disused place of worship the same as an
active place of worship then you could lie and usee the tag
amenity=place_of_worship, thus sending anyone looking for an
active place of worship to a disused place of worship.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>As for using 2 features on the one OSM object, well to be
pedantic then;</p>
<p> building=* should be on the building outline. <br>
</p>
<p>palces_of_worship should be on the area of the property if you
have that information, otherwise on a node. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAPy1dOKJbsykobngV0mwwvJ__waPSJjM8qo4JJX6xHegW0h7=Q@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<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 dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If one renders and not the other that's a
rendering bug and you can't assume that will always
be the case for all maps.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Some would regard it as a bug. From comments made by the
OSM standard</div>
<div>carto people here, I suspect they see it as a feature.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There are many thing not rendered by the OSM standard carto map.
I still correctly tag them because it is what is there. Some
people chose to tag their home as an embassy because they like the
way it shows up on the map, it is called tagging for the render. <br>
</p>
</body>
</html>