[Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 12:30:12 UTC 2019
Yes, buildings are a good example of a feature that can be disused or
even abandoned, but remain a building=house or building=barn.
I've recreated the pages. Please check them and make or suggest any
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:07 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
More information about the Tagging