[Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[marc marc]

Le 03. 01. 18 à 00:26, Warin a écrit :
> At present decaying features look to have the following progression for me;

you miss some.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix

> ruin: no wiki documented - where a totally new feature build would be 
> cheaper than a rebuild.

found 0 occurrence of ruin:
it is a problem ruined: <> ruins: (taginfo show that ruins: are more 
often than ruined: but having one documented namespace should be better)

> raised: no wiki documented - where most of the feature has been removed, 
> so little remains that it is hard to distinguish.

found 0 occurrence of raised:
it's not enough to have demolished: ?
I only found raised without namespace (bad idea because all tools need 
to check this tag to known that the feature is fact doesn't exist)

> gone:

with 35 occurrences, I think it's better to use a more common namespace 
like was:

> Should the following be adopted and if so with what definitions?
> 1) ruin: - where a totally new feature build would be cheaper than a 
> rebuild.

how can a standard mapper estimate the cost of repair <> rebuild ?

> 2) raised: - where most of the feature has been removed, so little 
> remains that it is hard to distinguish.

what is "most" for one object ? I think that have a meaning only on a 
relation with several objects. imho abandoned: could also be used in 
this case
for individual object, other namespace are better.
so I don't see in witch case this additional namespace 'll be usefull

Regards,
Marc