[Tagging] Hiking route abandoned

[SomeoneElse]

Bryce Nesbitt wrote:
> The problem with disused: is the object disappears from the map.

Leaving aside the "which map?" question, lots of things don't get 
rendered; it makes sense for a disused restaurant to NOT be rendered as 
a restaurant, since whatever it is, it's not currently somewhere where 
you can have a meal.

>
> Your alternative is to leave it "on the map" as it does in fact exist.
> Then use "access=" to clarify the status.  It might have degraded from
> "access=public" down to "access=no" or "access=permissive" depending.
>

In the example of a hiking route, that's a bad idea since it the access 
tag implies something entirely different to "is / is not signed" - in 
this case "am I legally allowed to go there?".

The things that I end up marking as "disused" are things like pubs, 
restaurants and churches, and in some cases "disused:amenity" might make 
sense (it was an X, is now boarded up, but might become an X again in 
the future) whereas in others some kind of note or "former_X" tag might 
make sense (as an indicator to mappers as much as anything else - e.g. 
the building here was an X, but has been converted to a private house 
and is likely to stay that way). Basically, leave it to local mappers to 
choose - any attempt at enforcing a top-down system will miss the 
nuances of what's happening locally.

Cheers,

Andy