[Tagging] Removing an ATM

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Jul 9 23:29:14 UTC 2019

On 10/07/19 00:42, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 09/07/2019 15:27, Paul Allen wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 15:10, Martin Koppenhoefer 
>> <dieterdreist at gmail.com <mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     sent from a phone
>>     > On 9. Jul 2019, at 15:57, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>     >
>>     > Where an object is no longer physically present, such as a
>>     telephone booth that has
>>     > been removed, then removed:amenity=telephone.
>>     while disused and abandoned features make sense and can be
>>     observed, may help for orientation or might be reactivated,
>> Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).
> ... but depending on the feature, they may do elsewhere.
> I've no idea if anyone renders disused ATMs (I don't) but on cue I've 
> just remembered and updated 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5179225222 rather than just 
> removing it in case someone does.  I'm sure it'll get reinstated at 
> some point, and I'll change the tagging back.  If the ATM had actually 
> been removed I'd have just deleted it, but in this case it is still there
> Plenty of other "disused / no longer useful for the original purpose" 
> are major landscape features that deserve to be recorded, and 
> sometimes the best tag really is disused:foo=bar.


They form part of my navigational landscape.

E.g. a pub that has not been used for a century and falling down .. is 
the only building for quite some distance. It is a navigational feature 
that all recognise.

A path that is now overgrown .. yet going past it locates you on the 
map, provided the map has it and you recognise it.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190710/67f1c3d3/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list