pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 12:57:41 UTC 2020
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 12:43, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:
> On 16/01/2020 01:08, Paul Allen wrote:
> > That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree.
> Do they?
Until you chimed in, most did.
> > So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended.
> Does it?
The fact that we're having this thread means that there is doubt and
Maybe your interpretation is the correct one and the wiki needs to be more
forceful in what it already says. Whichever viewpoint is correct, it's
if the wiki states it clearly so we don't keep having this conversation.
> "Use the disused: lifecycle prefix on tags that relate to features that
> are in a reasonable state of repair but which are currently unused."
> So the wiki says now. It's not what it said in the past. But let's say
correct. We both know that standard carto doesn't render physical objects
with a disused prefix. I, and others, believe that it is important to
physical objects whether they are used or disused because they are
navigational landmarks. Joseph's example of a disused water tower is
a good one: it's a water tower and it exists and it's visible; whether or
it is in use is of secondary importance (some might even argue it is of no
importance and shouldn't be tagged).
So if you get your way and disused=yes becomes forbidden, or is treated the
same way as the disused prefix by standard carto, some (perhaps most)
will stop tagging physical objects as disused. They will consider it more
important that the object renders than to give information about it being
disused. At best, they'll add a note saying it's disused. A note is
text, so they might not use the actual word "disused" which means it will
be harder to construct queries to find or ignore disused objects.
I don't see any upside to your position but I do see plenty of downside.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging