[Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
> disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.
>

It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced
version, when
applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).

It's fine with usages.  I've mapped pubs that have recently closed and it
is uncertain if they
will re-open as a pub, re-open as something else, be turned into a
residence or the
building itself become disused.  I've been tagging them as
disused:amenity=pub
Some people with what I view as an over-strict interpretation of rules may
say that's
mapping the history of the thing and OSM doesn't map history, but I ignore
them.

However, there are several buildings in my town that are clearly disused.
Peeling paintwork,
broken windows, no sign of activity for many years.  If I use
disused:building=yes they
vanish from the map but they're observable in reality, which means the map
doesn't
show something that is physically present.  Using disused=yes is a way
around this.
Call it tagging for the renderer if you want, but it's not lying for the
renderer.

So I'd argue these are not obsolete, should get their pages back, and both
their pages and
the namespaced equivalents should get a brief note saying in which
situation the namespaced
version may or may not be preferred.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190729/82ba1ce5/attachment.html>