[Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

[Bryce Nesbitt]

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, fly <lowflight66 at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Exactly, what you do describe won't work. Please use a prefix if
> something is broken. Software which wants to display these kind of
> broken objects can look for this prefix and all other simply ignore it.
>
> It would be really dangerous in a dry area if you need water and go to
> route to a amenity=drinking_water only to find it broken.
>

Similarly it could be dangerous if a mapper "disused:" a water tap because
they observed it to be broken, then it is fixed a few days later, then six
years later someone needs it.  For that reason, I don't think we should
"disuse:" objects which still exist on the ground!
"Observed to be broken" is a far weaker status than "should not display on
most maps".

As a mapper I'd rather keep silent about observing a broken object,
compared to the risk it will forevermore disappear from the usable and
useful data set.  Any solution has to recognize that OSM will generally lag
the true on the ground status of any object (under construction, broken,
fixed or otherwise).  The fact an object was reported "observed in a broken
status" does not control the future: it is a reporting of the past.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130702/893a154e/attachment.html>