[Tagging] Was there every a proposal for the disused:key=* / abandoned:key=* lifecycle prefixes?
Paul Allen
pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 17:18:21 UTC 2019
On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:53, Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer, <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be
>> kept.
>>
>
> All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are
> you saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects?
>
Looking around my town...
Disused toilets. Building still retains toilet facilities. Local group
hopes to take control from
the county council and re-open it. AFAIK, not used for storage or anything
else. In reasonable
repair, although some vandalism apparent and boarded over.
Disused toilets. Not sure who operated them. Windows and doors boarded
over.
Disused house. Some graffiti. A window boarded over. AFAIK, not used for
storage or
anything else.
Disused petrol station. Dilapidated to the extent some would call it
abandoned. If it's used
for storage then it's of not-worth-stealing, waterproof items because
breaking in would be
easy and the roof is lifting. https://goo.gl/maps/Bc2fUnhAXe5VyrRt9
Disused non-residential building. Some graffiti, paint peeling. May be
used for storage, may not.
Not kept in good repair.
Etc.
Some of those I know are not being used for anything, not even storage.
Whatever their
original purpose, the building is disused. One question is should they be
rendered, and most
people seem to agree that they should. Should the buildings be tagged as
disused? So
the wiki implies. If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, then
how?
--
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190926/1bd694f1/attachment.html>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list