[Tagging] Contents of Tagging Digest, Vol 64, Issue 148, discussion, strategy and related tools

[St Niklaas]

Today's Topics:
> 
>    2. Re: Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED" (althio)
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:58:27 +0100
> From: althio <althio.forum at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Lifecycle concepts, "REMOVED"
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAF1YuDBQRvoZeskk3KeeK-QzUbj6HXe085xr2tasfD1a5oUZHA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes, feature that does not exist anymore (or even never existed!) or
> > is only proposed has no place in OSM.
> 
> +1. No place on rendered map and apps. +/-1. No place on DB.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> +1. Tag:note=* is useful for such cases.
> 
> > But not a full tagging scheme!
> 
> -1. If you keep the outline in OSM database, removed:building=* instead of
> building=* is efficient, can be quicker than free-form note=*, clear and
> informative.
 
Hi,


Just a link we had the same discussion earlier this year, link http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=29723 in
Dutch sorry.


The outcome was tag or ad plans if there’s any kind of activity, signs (?)
,  but measuring, groundwork and so on is
sufficient to mark an area as landuse=construction and make a start drawing the
supposed trace, step by step.


OSM is not an official planning’s map for anyone, don’t start drawing if
there nothing out there to see.


Greetz



 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20150130/3a3449b6/attachment.html>