kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Tue Jan 14 19:19:21 UTC 2020
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:03 PM Markus <selfishseahorse at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> > For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
> > indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
> > 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
> > that fall in the area of, 'is a structure this decrepit still a
> > building?' - and that ontologic question triggers endless debates
> > here.
> Is it really the shop that is disused and not the building in which
> the shop is located?
I think that the point has just been reinforced that debates over
subtle ontologic questions, such as "is the building that the shop
occupies a shop, or not?" are the usual outcome of this sort of
A philosopher cares. A data consumer, particularly an automated one,
likely does not. Any of the above taggings result in the conclusion:
"Building here. Shop was once here, but no longer is." - thus
satisfying those who are searching for a shop and don't want to find a
closed one, those looking to navigate and being told to expect a
disused shop on the street corner, and even those searching for
disused commercial properties to redevelop.
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin
More information about the Tagging