[Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 03-Jan-18 01:59 PM, Warin wrote:
>
> ----------------------- So OSM decaying things - with decisions 
> leading to the next category
>
> where something has ceased being used (note, observation and judgement 
> required, fairly easy);
> _disused_: -
> where putting it back into service requires substantial work (note, 
> observation and judgement required)
> _abandoned:_
> where restoration is uneconomic (note, observation and judgement required)
Some object to this as it requires judgement, but then so too does the 
step between disused to abandoned. This definition is not as fuzzy as 
that of disused to abandoned

> _ruin/ruins/ruined:_ (ruined matches the tense of the above tags so 
> would make sense that way)
> where the feature no longer exists, there maybe traces, but few of 
> them. (note, observation and judgement required though this is fairly 
> easy)
> _demolished/removed/was/destroyed/razed/gone/past/former_ - all the 
> same thing as far as results on the ground - the feature no longer 
> exists. So why the need to signify the method? In one word 
> non-existent - and that might be the best tag to use?
> Some want to put these in to try and stop additions of things that are 
> not there e.g. a building in satellite imagery that has been 
> demolished. So 'non_existent:' might be the best to hope for.
>
>

As well as non-existent there is 'absent' and that might be better as it 
is a single word without negation. Is it easily translated into other 
languages? It has a Latin base.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180104/10cd1e7e/attachment.html>