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

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:10, Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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)."
>

Discouraged but not forbidden.  You might also take a look at the wiki page
for quarry, which
says that disused quarries should get disused=yes rather than
disused:landuse=quarry
(somebody, not me, made that change after a discussion here are few weeks
ago).

>
> [...] 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).
>
>>
> True.  It's not good practice.  But it happens.  Postel's Law, aka the
Robustness Principle, ought
to apply: people shouldn't do it, but handle it correctly anyway.


> [...] 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,
>

Those are the points I was making, I'm glad at least one person agrees.
I'm not confident
enough that physical object vs property is a universal rule for whether a
disused object is
rendered or not, but I do think it's a very good approximation.  Explicit
tagging, rather than
implicit inference by the renderer, would allow us to make exceptions to
the rule.


> 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.
>

But it's right for a disused amenity.   And if we can't even get agreement
about the desirability
of rendering disused physical objects but not disused amenities, what hope
do we have of
getting agreement if we add another tag to the mix?

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190926/71e8843b/attachment.html>