matkoniecz at gmail.com
Tue Aug 25 19:25:19 UTC 2015
On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:33:04 +0200
Friedrich Volkmann <bsd at volki.at> wrote:
> On 24.08.2015 22:49, Chris Hill wrote:
> > I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided.
> > Suppose someone uses foo=bar + disused=yes. Someone else searches
> > for foo=bar, he will find the objects with and without disused=yes.
> That's fine, because disused objects are still there, so they need to
> remain retrievable. A disused church may still retain its frescos, a
> disused adit may still be visited by chiropterologists, a disused
> track may still be usable for tractors and hikers, and a disused
> canal may be used by bathers or fishermen, or at least it is still a
It depends on object. Disused building is still building and
disused=yes is OK in that situation.
Disused tracks that is usable is still track (and disused=yes is OK).
Once track disappears due to disuse it should be simply deleted.
Tagging closed shop/pub with disused=yes is a poor
idea. Closed shop is no longer place where one may buy things - at most
there are some traces and possibility of reopening what in some cases
may be mapped as disued:shop=*.
> When someone is searching for a boat passage, he needs to filter out
> (...) start_date in the future
This one should never happen.
Any objects like that are tagging errors. Objects like that should be
probably tagged as in construction (with end_date in future) or proposed
in case of nearly certain construction (with end_date in future) or not
mapped in OSM (is there some other state beyond in
construction/proposed that I missed?).
More information about the Tagging