[Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"

[Mateusz Konieczny]

Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
is only proposed has no place in OSM.

With possible caveat that features that are extremely likely to be added
(recently destroyed building visible on aerial images etc) element with note
explaining situations makes sense.

But not a full tagging scheme!


2015-01-28 19:25 GMT+01:00 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:

> Hi,
>
> On 01/28/2015 01:08 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> > *removed:*
> >
> >   * (features that do not exist anymore or never existed but are
> >     commonly seen on other sources)
> >
> > I propose to remove the part "or never existed but are commonly seen on
> > other sources", because this has nothing to do with "removed".
>
> Frankly, a feature that does not exist anymore has no place in OSM in my
> opinion.
>
> If there used to be a castle and now there's a ruin, then we tag that as
> a ruin (with potential add-on info about its former castle status).
>
> If there used to be a building but all that is left is a clearing in the
> forest, then the clearing will be in OSM, and not a building with a
> lifecycle tag of "removed".
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150128/304c2a86/attachment.html>