[Tagging] building=disused

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Jan 15 08:27:18 UTC 2020


Am Mi., 15. Jan. 2020 um 08:03 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com
>:

> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> > And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical
> objects???
>
> I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants
> to show buildings that were used as shop, but are now vacant/disused,
> might show them very prominent.
> A map showing windmills might show working windmills in black and
> disused one in grey or without vanes or ...



it generally depends on the kind of object. Some might merit rendering,
others would better be ignored all together (because there's very limited
space on the map and they will generally not be worth showing even
if there would be sufficient space). On a general purpose map, a building
is a building, and it doesn't matter whether it is used or not (and it
could be reused any time), as long as it hasn't deteriorated to a ruin (has
significantly changed nature), in which case a mere "disused" would be not
appropriate any more. I am not saying it isn't interesting to anybody or
there won't be subtle differences between an used and an unused building,
just that it isn't sufficiently significant (IMHO) to merit different
treatment.

On the other hand, many amenities, even though they often have a physical
"body", are not useful or interesting to show at all when they are not in
use, e.g. telephone booths, mail boxes, drinking fountains, generally small
items, while bigger items (train stations, post offices, quarries etc.) are
probably significant enough even for a general purpose map to be shown
somehow.

Cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200115/746eb81b/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list