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

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated.

Are they "in use" then?

According to https://taghistory.raifer.tech they've both increased in
number by about 3500 features in the past 12 months. In comparison,
disused:shop=* has been added about 3000 times in the same time
period.

On 7/29/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 14:43 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com
>>:
>
>> On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...
>>
>
>
> it is not just one renderer, OSM-Carto is often seen as standard
> implementation and a lot of people are taking it as template when they
> develop their own style. Generally the vast majority of data consumers does
> neither look at disused / abandoned=yes qualifiers, nor at them as
> prefixes. This applies to routing engines, rendering rules and all other
> kind of data consumers. Maybe there is someone looking at these "details",
> but most don't.
>
>
> As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means for
>> e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock was
>> extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one that
>> wanted to show holes in the ground would still show them.
>>
>
>
> that's a problem of tagging then. "landuse" is not suitable to represent a
> business. You need an additional tag for this. It might work as a shortcut
> in simple cases, but it is not generally working and is not in analogy to
> how we map factories or other industrial landuses for example.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>