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

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 26 18:47:49 UTC 2019


On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 19:17, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

> >
> > 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?
>
> you could add building:use=no
> or building=* disused=yes
>

I've used the second of those two.

disused:building doesn’t make a lot of sense


I don't think there is any meaningful semantic difference between that and
adding
disused=yes.  The building is in the disused part of its lifecycle, both
express the same
thing.  But one way (currently, on standard carto) causes the building to
render and the
other does not.

and will make the buildings disappear from many applications.


And we're back full circle.  I agree with you on that one.  Kevin Kenny put
it eloquently
that he's not lying, he's just telling the truth in a way the renderer
understands.  What
he didn't say is he was talking of how standard carto currently does things
and he, like
I, hope it will continue to do so.  If standard carto suddenly stops
rendering physical
objects with disused=yes then I will stop using that tag.  If standard
carto suddenly
starts rendering disused:amenity=pub with a pub icon then I will stop using
that tag.

But others have chimed in saying the renderer is perfectly entitled to
render a disused building
(whichever way we tag it) in any way it wants.  Which is true.  But it
would be nice if we had a
degree of coherence across OSM such that standard carto (at least) could
agree to support
certain expectations.

Standard carto COULD choose to render motorways the same colour as rivers.
If they ever
did, some mappers would tag motorways as primary highways with appropriate
lane counts
and some mappers would see it as no longer being worthwhile mapping
motorways.  We
don't have any promises from standard carto that they will never render
motorways the same
way they render rivers, we assume they wouldn't choose to do so.  In the
case of disused
objects, two ways of tagging produce two different results, each of which
is desirable in
specific circumstances, and it would be nice to have an assurance that we
could rely upon
that behaviour (or something like it achieved with different tagging) in
future.

BTW, I found a different problem with a recent change to standard carto.  I
won't say what it
is or this thread will derail further.  I can't fix it by choosing
alternative tags (valid although
perhaps discouraged).  I can't fix it by tagging for the renderer and lying
about what's really
there (not that I'd do that even if it were possible).  The only possible
way to get a satisfactory
rendering is lying about the position of a very significant feature, and I
refuse to do that.  So
I no longer map features of that type - there are plenty of other things to
map and I won't
waste my time on features that render misleadingly badly.  The data, prized
above all
else by some, won't be corrupted by me but it will be less complete than it
could have
been.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190926/0e4fd5e3/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list