[Tagging] Life cycle group

François Lacombe francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu
Mon Apr 8 23:38:54 UTC 2013

Hi gentlemen,

I completely agree with Ole to say we really need a consistent life cycle

Nevertheless, using <life state>:*=* to describe life cycle of keys instead
of objects doesn't sound good to me.
If an object has 3 successive different use cases, we would tag the two
first as disused:*=* but we won't be able to say which one was first.

There's a big lack of time information in OSM which is although what a life
management scheme needs.
I'm a bit disappointed about the versions system used to manage edit
history of objects: it should be used to manage real-life cycle too but I'm
aware it's not so easy to implement.

I won't have time to start a proposal on this pretty theoretical aspect of
the OSM tagging scheme. All I would like to say is "*+1*".

Even if it's a very interesting thing on power networks, I will remove the
life cycle chapter of power generation refinement proposal since it will be
very hard to get a consistent set of tags to manage such a transversal


2013/4/8 Ole Nielsen <on-osm at xs4all.nl>

> 2013/4/8 Ole Nielsen <on-osm at xs4all.nl <mailto:on-osm at xs4all.nl>>
>> not so sure, that "historic" is the right term for stuff completely
>> gone, currently the key "historic" is used mainly for stuff that was
>> created a long time ago, but which hasn't necessarily vanished in the
>> meantime (most of the stuff categorized under "historic" is actually
>> still there, so there would be some risk of creating confusion using the
>> same term for another concept). Besides this I agree that it is nice to
>> tag these states in a uniform way, simply use another term for
>> "historic", maybe "disappeared", "vanished", "demolished", or simply
>> delete and formalize a changeset tag?
> The exact term can be discussed, that's why we need a proposal. I think
> there are good reasons to keep track of demolished features. One is for
> recording the past (think a "openhistorymap.org"), another reason is to
> prevent accidential remapping of features that have recently been
> demolished but are still visible in aerial imagery. The undergrounding of
> power lines is a good example.
> Ole
> ______________________________**_________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>

*François Lacombe*

francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130409/214696d5/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list