[Tagging] Milk Churn Stands

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 19:08, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> > On 20. Jun 2020, at 14:44, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > They should probably have disused=yes or a disused lifecycle
> > prefix (cue endless arguments about which) except in parts of the world
> > where they actually are still in use (if they are).
>
> I think if any I would use disused=yes as they still remain „operational“
> I guess, although not actually used.
>

True of brick/concrete/stone.  For wooden ones that are decaying,
abandoned=yes
may be more appropriate.  I've not had chance to take a look myself yet (and
won't be able to look until there's a vaccine) but sources I cannot use for
mapping indicate that the one nearest to me, embedded in a bank, has had
the bank reshaped to cover the top of it (only the side is visible).  Using
abandoned=yes in such cases would seem appropriate.

The disused:key=value style seems more appropriate for functions (amenity
> etc.) than for physical descriptions (man_made).
>

That is how I interpret it, but others on this list have a different
opinion.  However,
I'd go with was:man_made=milk_churn_stand if it had been repurposed
in some way that it merited a different main tag.  A foolish consistency
is the hobgoblin of little minds, according to Ralph Waldo Emerson.

That leaves the question of the name.  For older British English speakers
the
containers are called milk churns, even though they are not for churning
milk.  This may cause confusion to younger speakers of British English
and those for whom English is a second language.  According to the
Wikipedia article these are sometimes referred to as milk cans so
maybe milk_can_stand would be better than milk_churn_stand.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200620/cac9ba8f/attachment.htm>