[Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?

[Paul Allen]

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 at 14:48, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

E.g. an abandoned:building is probably more a ruin than a building, while a
> disused building is still a building.
>

Either way, the building is still visible and can be used for navigation
purposes.  If you add
disused=yes or abandoned=yes the building still renders.  Use a lifecycle
prefix and it
doesn't render.  Some consider that an argument not to use lifecycle
prefixes on physical
objects that are still present, but only use it on non-physical tags.

For example, there is a former pub near me.  It is a listed building and
still has a prominent,
old-fashioned sign which is part of the reason it is listed (so the sign
cannot legally be
removed).  It is now used as a domestic residence, but the misleading sign
remains.  It's not a
disused building.  It's also not a pub, but it is easily mistaken for one.
disused:building=* would
be very wrong.  Some would argue against disused:amenity=pub (historical
information) but in
this case I think it's justified (even though I expect somebody to chime in
and say it's not).

https://goo.gl/maps/u6yjAaRwH6A4JjZh6

BTW, that's on national cycle route 82, so whether or not it really is a
pub would be of
interest to some mappers.  Mapping it as amenity=pub + disused=yes would
(if carto
is consistent with other times I've tried disused=yes) render it as a pub
where
disused:amenity=pub does not render it as a pub.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190925/5890d989/attachment.html>