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

[Markus]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 15:19 Paul Allen, <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>

Actually, the wiki page for Key:disused: says:

"Use of disused as a simple tag is now discouraged (for example
disused=yes)."

>
[...] 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. [...]
>

Tagging two main features on one object isn't good practice anyway (see
wiki page One feature, one OSM element).

>
[...] Mostly it seems that disused physical objects should render
> but disused properties should not [...]
>

I think that's the point: disused physical objects can still be helpful
(e.g. for orientation), but disused (closed) services rather aren't. Either
renderers can make this distinction or we should make it with tagging, by
using another prefix for closed services, e.g. was: or closed:, which are
both already in use (approx. 35,000 was: vs. approx. 600 closed:). Using
disused: for a closed service doesn't feel right anyway.

Thus, those disused toilets could be tagged:

disused:building=toilets

and separately

was:amenity=toilets

Regards
Markus

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190926/c2d20dd1/attachment.html>