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

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Jan 10 12:46:42 UTC 2017

2017-01-09 13:15 GMT+01:00 ael <law_ence.dev at ntlworld.com>:

> This thread has reminded me that I have encountered problems with
> mapping disused quarries and surface mining.
> The quarries that I have in mind are major geographical features - they
> have not been filled in. I tried tagging them as landuse=quarry and
> disused=yes. If landuse really does mean current use of an area, that
> looks contradictory. Often such old quarries are now in use for
> recreation, often the water filled part for watersports. So perhaps that
> is "land"use=recreation or landuse=quarry;recreation? It seem clear that
> there is a problem here. A (large) quarry is perhaps geographical rather
> than landuse?

+1, I completely agree with your assessment: a quarry can often be
significant after people have stopped extracting minerals. I can be
publicly accessible and used for recreation, which allows us to tag the
recreational function, but we miss on the physical aspects, i.e. that it
has been a quarry. You might tag it like disused:landuse=quarry, but the
tag sounds a bit like an oxymoron.
Maybe historic=quarry?

> I have the same problem with historic surface mining areas: these are
> major features on the landscape, often with very large excavations, and
> need
> recording/rendering, yet now are "just" moorland or  have other uses.
> Again, I didn't think landuse=surface_mining + historic + disused worked
> and certainly didn't render.

+1, very similar case.
As an alternative to disused:landuse=* you could use
historic=surface_mining (but it will typically be a very huge polygon)

> I am tempted to bring up the case of major bridges which are parts of
> abandoned railways not being rendered. While that really is a bug in the
> renderers, if we had some tag for major physical features that would
> be rendered regardless of any historic or disused tags. it would solve
> many such problems.

this has already been solved when bridges were introduced to OSM
(relatively recently). For many years, OSM didn't have a way to map bridges
and was relying on indirect mapping methods (state on a highway or railway
that it runs on a bridge, the bridge=yes property, or connect several of
those ways that run over a bridge with a bridge relation). Now there is
man_made=bridge, pretty established and even rendered in the main style.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170110/221ed947/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list