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

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Fri Sep 27 15:54:21 UTC 2019

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 16:36, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>

> 27 Sep 2019, 15:22 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
> On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 13:46, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
> wrote:
> 27 Sep 2019, 13:52 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
> The status for that is "in use," which makes it a little questionable.
> Why? Such tags are perfectly fine to be used.

So are tags such as fipjevye=snalkagi.  Anything goes.  However, some tags
viewed by some people as undesirable.  It seems to me that the people with
objections to a particular tag on the grounds that it didn't go through an
process also resort to "anything goes" when it suits them (but I may be
misremembering).  In general I'm more persuaded by "these are the good
why this tag should not be used" than "there are no good reasons why that
tag should
be used" and even less so by "it's not been approved" or "it's not used
much."  But I
mentioned the status of building:use to try to anticipate objections.

> But building:use gives no idea what the building looks like, and there are
> many buildings with
> distinct styles.
> That is role of building tag.

That's my opinion too.  But others have voiced strong disagreement within
the last
week or so.  I'm merely offering explanations why I disagree with them.
Although some
people strongly object to building=church (or anything else other than
they're widely used; don't do any harm (at least on standard carto) as any
value other than
"no" renders; add useful information to the data; and, above all,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190927/b945ed89/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list