[Tagging] What about a disused quarry and historic surface mining?

ael law_ence.dev at ntlworld.com
Mon Jan 9 20:23:00 UTC 2017


On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
> On 09.01.2017 13:15, ael wrote:
> Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first
> saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it.

I don't think that is a natural interpretation. It is perfectly clear in
the case of a disused quarry. It is still a quarry. But it is no longer
in use. In a few cases it may have a new purpose, but it is still a
quarry in any normal sense.

I think I tried disused:landuse=quarry, but as I recall it was then not
rendered on the standard map. I am all against tagging for the renderer
in principle, but when such major features are not shown, it is
ridiculous and a hazard. Theses particular quarries have sheer faces
some of which are not fenced off.

> The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former.

In the cases that I was examining, the current use is "disused_quarry".

> man_made=bridge is rendered on the main carto map. If the bridge outline of
> a major bridge is not in the database, it's the mappers' fault, not the
> renderers'.

Are you suggesting that I pollute the database with invented features?
I have mapped several of these bridges which are under thick tree cover
using a pretty good gps unit. But the traces were not of sufficent
quality under the trees to distiguish the two sides of the bridge which
is some cases were no more than 2 m apart. I have always worried about
spurious accuracy. Maybe I have to invent bridge outlines to fit in
with the scheme above, but I feel very uncomfortable about that.
A bridge is a bridge and is a major feature regardless of whether it is
still in use for its original purpose.

Sorry to be contrary, but I was advocating the use of OSM to non
technical local councillors in Cornwall, and the fact that all these
major bridges around the area were not rendered was just too embarrassing.
So I dropped the idea until they were rendered on the "default" map.
It would seem that I have to invent "outlines" to fix that which goes
against the grain. I should add that I was not the orginal mapper for
many of these disused bridges, so I am not the only one omitting bridge
outlines. [Background: there are many old abandoned mining railways and tracks
in Cornwall, many of which bridge roads. They need to appear on road
maps. Some of them are also tourist attractions.]

ael




More information about the Tagging mailing list