[Tagging] key damage and HOT

[Warin]

On 7/2/20 10:45 am, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     I disagree with the whole premise. To me both
>     building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes means exactly the
>     same thing and should be interpreted the same way.
>
>
> But they AREN'T.  The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a 
> ruined
> building DOES NOT RENDER.  And you never even noticed, you just made a
> blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
> assumption.
>
The choice of one tag over another above is base on one thing: does it 
render the way wanted.

Is the desired solution to have life cycle prefixes ignored by renders 
so a ruined thing is rendered the same as non ruined things?


Let say a hospital has collapsed.

The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag 
damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.

So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully functional 
hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.

You cannot now say that it should be tagged another way because it is a 
hospital, why would the rules change from one object to another?


Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from fully 
functional things.

Personally I don't mind that some things are not rendered by the 
standard map, there is a lot on it now. Keeping everyone happy is not 
possible.


And, by the way... I do know it does not render. And I don't care if it 
renders or not... I tag what I see as truth.


>     You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and
>     one to hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I
>     don't think has any place in OSM.
>
>
> Really?  Explain to me the difference between building=yes + 
> disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes.  Both
> render as buildings.  Neither render as a place of worship.  One has 
> additional
> information that is of use to people.  If you have your way, I  can 
> and WILL
> decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
> presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
> entirely correct and match reality on the ground.  You just want me to
> tag in a way that loses information.  I see no merit in that.


The tagging should not decide what is rendered. It is the render that 
decides what is rendered.


amenity=place_of_worship says there is an active place of worship here.

disused:amenity=place_of_worship says there is a non active place of 
worship here.

Where is the loss of information? None in the tagging. If you want the 
render to show a disused place of worship the same as an active place of 
worship then you could lie and usee the tag amenity=place_of_worship, 
thus sending anyone looking for an active place of worship to a disused 
place of worship.


As for using 2 features on the one OSM object, well to be pedantic then;

building=* should be on the building outline.

palces_of_worship should be on the area of the property if you have that 
information, otherwise on a node.



>
>     If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you
>     can't assume that will always be the case for all maps.
>
>
> Some would regard it as a bug.  From comments made by the OSM standard
> carto people here, I suspect they see it as a feature.


There are many thing not rendered by the OSM standard carto map. I still 
correctly tag them because it is what is there. Some people chose to tag 
their home as an embassy because they like the way it shows up on the 
map, it is called tagging for the render.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200207/f065d79b/attachment.htm>