[Tagging] building=disused

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 01:39:51 UTC 2020


On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 01:24, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:

My thinking is that both 'disused=yes' and 'disused:*=* tag the same
> condition. As such they should be treated equally by renders.
>

And my thinking is that there is a difference between a disused building
(it's
still a building) and a disused place of worship (it's no longer a place of
worship).  It is misleading to render a disused building as though the
building
did not exist.  It is misleading to render a disused place of worship as
though
it is still a place of worship.  Disused physical objects merit different
treatment from disused functions.

> The only reason why there is a preference for 'disused=yes' is that the
> present 'standard' render is ignoring it.
>
Yep.  Freely admitted.

> If you want physical objects with tagging for disused, abandoned, etc
> rendered on the 'standard' map then put a pull request in.
>
I suggested that as an alternative the last time this was discussed.  I'm
happy
to use disused=yes as things stand at present and I'd be happy to use the
disused prefix if it no longer prevented the rendering of physical
objects.  Either
way is fine by me.

However, it seems that two people from the carto crowd think disused=yes is
the way to go.  Maybe there are others in the carto crowd who think it
better
to have the disused prefix behave differently for physical objects.  That's
one
of the reasons I'd like some sort of assurance that minds have been made up.

> Stop tagging for the render.
>
I'm not lying for the renderer.  I'm using one established way of tagging
something
in preference to a different, established way of tagging that thing.  So
are others.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200116/00875691/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list