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

Bryce Nesbitt bryce2 at obviously.com
Fri Jul 19 04:42:28 UTC 2013


Looking at the existing tagging, I think I will take a ride down the
slippery slope you mention.
For example: an "aed" is an emergency medical device people are mapping.
 Learning the locations of these could be important in an emergency:
checking the mapping makes sense.

So how about:

lastcheck=date  (the only required tag)
lastcheck:source=*  (a description of your mapping party or expedition)
lastcheck:status=(operating/needs_maintenance/restricted/closed)
lastcheck:note=*  (notes on the above e.g. 'sprays water on feet')
operator=* (the operator of the facility, who is responsible for attending
to the facility)

This could apply to any node or way, but it would be silly on most.  I've
seen a few lastcheck= on meadows, but would never add one myself.
I would however check drinking water, aed's, toilets, and maybe opening
hours.

Thus we'd have:

   - lastcheck/lastcheck:status=* *for facilities that are intended to
   remain in operation, even if they are inoperable when observed.*
   - disused=yes *for facilities that have ceased operation, but still
   exist on the ground*
   - disused:oldtag=oldvalue *for facilities that have ceased to exist on
   the ground (e.g. building is a vacant lot).*



On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> I have no strong opinion on the general idea but one thing sticks out:
> "operational_status=operating"**.
>
> Obviously, this should be the default assumption. If there's a toilet
> mapped then I assume that it is working.
>
> I understand how you'd like mappers to reaffirm that it is *indeed*
> working by setting "operational_status=operating"**, but this takes you
> way into the terrain of "verification mapping" which is a larger topic -
> what you're suggesting really only makes sense if one can assume that a
> mapper passing by a working toilet would make sure it is tagged
> operational_status=operating and then update the operational_status:date to
> the current date. (If you do not expect this behaviour then you wouldn't
> need operational_status:date because it would simply be the date when the
> tag has been last changed.)
>
> This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she
> walks the streets, update every object in the database with "yep, this is
> still there, I walked past it right now". Because just as a toilet could
> fall into disrepair, a shop could close or a house vanish, and what we
> currently do is we map this when we see it but we don't map "yep the house
> was still there last Sunday". Attempting to do this would change the
> typical mapper workflow and the structure of our data drastically.
>
> I know it's a slippery slope argument, and you're only proposing to do
> this for a narrow subset of things - I just wanted to point out that
> "verification mapping" is not something we do currently.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20130718/e40b666a/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list