[Tagging] building=disused

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 16 13:31:07 UTC 2020

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 16/01/2020 12:01, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> > A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better.
> > But
> > you already lost the battle with building=house, which is too firmly
> > entrenched to change.
> Why would it need to change? If that's it's *current* usage tag it as
> house. If it changes to something else, amend it. .

I seem to be having difficulty getting my point across.  You were arguing
against building=school because there is no unifying style.  Therefore the
only valid value is building=yes.  You also implied the same is true of
all building types.  Under your theory, building=house is invalid, it should
be building=yes.  You are not going to get everyone to change from
building=house to some other means of tagging houses, and you're
certainly not going to get all existing building=house changed.

You are stuck with the fact that building=house exists and will continue to
exist.  You have lost the battle for building=yes being the only acceptable
value.  All you can do is fight skirmishes over particular building values,
saying that there is no style for that type of building that anyone looking
at it would say "That's a church."

> > BTW, what do you think this building is?
> > https://goo.gl/maps/vjpPFTSrQKdKA8Bt8
> > It's a private house.  But it used to be a chapel, and that's how you'd
> > describe it
> > if you wanted to use it as a landmark in navigational instructions.
> Use historic=* because *that's* what it is - historic. It makes it clear.

I used historic because I know what historic is actually for.  It's not a
for the was prefix.  Which is also applicable in this case.  It is a
historic building,
and a listed building.  It also was a chapel.

> Building=* is a current tag. Using it to describe its historical usage,
> based falsely on an assumption building usage (say, schools) has some
> sort of unifying physical characteristics, makes no logical sense.

To you.  To those of us who give directions of the form "Turn left just past
the chapel" rather than "turn left just past the building that looks like a
because it used to be a chapel but no longer is a chapel" or "Turn left
past a
building that you'd recognize as being a particular type of building but
I'm not
going to tell you what it is" it makes plenty of sense to use disused or was
prefix as appropriate.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200116/9faa3b01/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list