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

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 00:53, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

disused:*=* means it cannot presently be used for its intended purpose.
> That does not mean it does not exist.
>

Correct.

How renders chose to display that is up to them.
>

Also correct (sadly).

But the tagging is correct and truthful.
>

Using disused=yes is correct and truthful.  Using disused:foo=bar is ALSO
correct and truthful.
Both are documented as valid ways of tagging disused objects.


> Choosing another tag because it renders the way desired is not a good
> thing.
>

Only because the behaviour is not guaranteed across renderers or even over
time for a single
renderer.  However, choosing one correct and truthful tag over an
alternative correct and
truthful tag because of how it renders in one renderer is not wrong (even
though some may
consider it unwise).

For those who  use disused=yes because it renders .. are you equally happy
> to have amenity=toilet rendered when it has disused=yes on it???
> How about a pub, atm etc etc...
>

You mean like the toilet near me that has been shut down because the
council can't afford to run it
but which a local non-profit organization hopes to take over and re-open?
The building still
exists, but if i use disused:building=yes it vanishes from standard carto.
It's no longer being
used as a toilet but may be in the future, but if I add disused=yes then
the toilet symbol renders
so people turning up there with full bladders are going to be upset.

Or how about the many disused quarries near me?  They still exist.  They
are visible.  Some
of them pose a hazard.  If I use disused:landuse=quarry they vanish from
standard carto.

Renders need to distinguish between active features and those no longer in
> service, but

still existing. That is a rendering issue not a tagging issue.
>

How could renderers tell the difference unless the tagging informs them?
One way would
be for them to render only physical objects in the disused namespace, so
that
building:disused=yes renders but disused:amenity=toilets does not get a
toilet symbol.
That leaves a problem if somebody uses building=yes + amenity=toilets +
disused=yes,
although that's still possible for a renderer to figure out.  However, many
renderers do
not currently make those distinctions.

The other way is that renderers agree to support a tagging convention that
disused:foo=bar
suppresses rendering but disused=yes does not (standard carto is ahead of
the game here).

There ARE cases where disused objects should be rendered and there ARE
cases where they
should not.  We SHOULD have a tagging convention that at least one major
renderer supports
so that we can control this.  Mostly it seems that disused physical objects
should render
but disused properties should not, although that may not always be the
case, so two
ways of tagging disused objects leaves the decision up to the mapper rather
than relying
on a heuristic that may sometimes be wrong.

Moaning that we have two tags used to do the same thing which mappers
choose between
because of rendering isn't helpful.  Warning that those choices may be
incorrect in different
renderers, or may suddenly stop behaving in the expected way in standard
carto is better.
A documented agreement with (at least standard) carto on expected behaviour
that allows
disused objects to be rendered correctly would be best of all.  Except this
is OSM and we
don't do joined-up thinking.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190926/d23d81fa/attachment.html>