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

ksg ksgeo at web.de
Mon Jan 9 20:56:08 UTC 2017

> Am 09.01.2017 um 21:23 schrieb ael <law_ence.dev at ntlworld.com>:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer 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.

+1 That’s what the life cycle prefix is intended for.

> 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.

No, if there there no more mining, exploitation or landfill activities, the former quarry is a geological outcrop at best.

> 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.

You might use man_made=embankment for them. Don’t use natural=cliff, as these features are not of natural origin.

>> The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former.
> In the cases that I was examining, the current use is "disused_quarry“.

I would opt for describing the subsequent use like recreation, natural, leisure etc.


More information about the Tagging mailing list