[Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Andy Townsend]

On 04/01/2018 02:52, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com 
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     building=school
>     building:use=residential
>
>     That tags 'what is on the ground'.
>
>
> To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of cleverness
> on the part of the renderer, particularly since 'building:use' is not
> a common key at all.

For info, I did go through historic key usage in the UK and Ireland for 
a renderer and divided historic key usage into "building still exists" 
"ruins still exist" and "something still exists but not a building:

https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/9350fcbfa5133245688918b0e77c531976701467/style.lua#L1323

The tags that aren't mentioned there are where "something might once 
have existed here" or "I've seen something on the aerial imagery and it 
might be historic".

The UK's had almost no imports though; in some places (e.g. the US) 
there have been "schools" and "post offices" imported such as 
https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/357530584 .  I'm sure there was a 
post office in that hamlet once, but it almost certainly wasn't in the 
field where that node is located.

If I was rendering data for the US I'd likely try and exclude many/most 
GNIS imported features (apart from e.g. mountains, which don't move 
much) based on rules including them not being edited by other than 
mechanical edits post-import.

Example overpass query of a bit of Nevada as an example, showing the 
range of GNIS stuff: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/ud6 .

Best Regards,
Andy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180104/c3ffb5da/attachment.html>