[Tagging] building=disused

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Dave F <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 16/01/2020 12:57, Paul Allen wrote:
> >
> >> So the wiki says now.  It's not what it said in the past.  But let's
> say you're
> >> 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
> >> render physical objects whether they are used or disused because they
> are
> >> navigational landmarks.
>
> I agree.
>

You surprise me.

>
> >>   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
> >> not it is in use is of secondary importance (some might even argue it
> is of no
> >> importance and shouldn't be tagged).
>
> Then campaign to get Joseph/Carto to render disused:* prefix.


Umm, but only on physical objects.  disused:amenity=place_of_worship
shouldn't be rendered as a place of worship.  The current behaviour of
the disused prefix is what is desired for some types of object and wrong
for other types of object.

To not use
> disused:* because Carto doesn't currently render it is the tail wagging
> the dog. Joseph has already said similar.
>

That's not how I interpreted his remarks.  From what I read, he suggested
that
using disused=yes for physical objects is the right way to go.

  I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme.
>

It doesn't ignore it.  It applies it uniformly to everything.  That's the
problem.  Map
a building as disused:building=yes and it doesn't get rendered.

>
> >> So if you get your way and disused=yes becomes forbidden,
>
> I never said any such thing.
>

Effectively forbidden.  Extremely strongly deprecated.  Don't use
disused=yes, use the disused prefix instead.

>
> >>   or is treated the
> >> same way as the disused prefix by standard carto
>
> I want the opposite.
>

I recently said I'd be equally happy to retain the  current system or to
have
a more intelligent disused prefix that handles physical objects
differently.  I
take that back: I'd accept either but I'd be happier with the current
situation.
Consider a drinking fountain that has been disconnected: it's still
physically
there but it's no longer a drinking fountain even though it's recognizable
as
such.  There are edge cases where logic built into carto to handle specific
classes of object may not be intelligent enough.

Retaining disused=yes gives mappers the flexibility to handle edge cases.
It
also gives more opportunity for abuse, but that is inherent in every tag.
Somebody could tag roads as waterways because he feels roads should be
rendered in blue.  All tags can be abused.

>> I don't see any upside to your position but I do see plenty of downside.
>
> TBH, I think you've misinterpreted what I've said.
>

That's certainly possible.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200116/ae5c672b/attachment.htm>