[Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote:
>
>> 2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and repurpose categories on the main page.
>>
>> I hoped to bring some organisation to the page and simplify the understanding. If this has exposed misuse GOOD!
> It was good to point out the problems with "historic:" but don't see any gain
> in the reorganisation, especially as "birth" and "decay" are very poor section
> headers to organise that.

What headers/terms would you suggest?

As the things were getting confusing, for me at least, I though some organisation was needed.

Birth is a universal term that is easily understood and translated.

Decay too is a fairly universal term. Death might be a step too far.

This organisation has caused some to think on it, a good thing.
So I would keep it, feel free to change the headers!

>
>> As I have stated before, I am against using the tag historic within life categories.
> indeed, there are many problems with it.
>
>> I would suggest this is a different topic, repurpose is not something I am using, but my thoughts are;
>>
>> Repurpose
>>
>> Where a feature has changed porupose. As an example a school changed to a hospital. There are 4 taggs in use; was: past: former: and some uses of historic:.
>>
>> The  4 tags should be merged. Of these I prefer former, or failing that past.
> suffice to say that there are enough alternatives. No need to everengineer it,
> time will tell which tags will prevail.

Giving some guidance can lead to a more considered result. Some will simply use the first term they come across.

If a single  OSMwiki page can present the options in a clear way then the mappers  may consider the alternative and make their choice.

>
>> Unfortunately these can only indicate one change. For instance a country mansion built as a home,
>> changed to a convalescent hospital during 'the war', back to a home after 'the war' and is now a museum. So 4 states of use.
> if the approximate time of the changes is known the date namespace can be used.
> Otherwise chain one of the prefixes in a consistent manner eg
> former:former:building=school + former:building=hospital + building=...

Had not considered that. Not something I would use so not something I care about.

>
>> I personally see this a a case of using OHM to tag the past rather than expanding OSM.
> if it looks like a typical school but was repurposed than it is worth to keep the
> knowledge in OSM.

I am for tagging that - what it looks like and, if different, what its present use is.

I would not be tagging another past use other than the present, and what it looks like.