[Tagging] amenity=bbq without grill/grate ?

[Marc_marc]

Le 10.06.23 à 00:08, Matija Nalis a écrit :
> On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:50:21 -0500, Kevin Broderick <ktb at kevinbroderick.com> wrote:
>> It makes sense to me if the feature is clearly intended to be a
>> BBQ/grilling one, but the grill is missing. One such example that comes to
>> mind is a state park with picnic tables and grill boxes where 1/3 of the
>> latter are missing the grills.
> 
> I think in such vandalized case it would be better tagged as
> disused:amenity=bbq or abandoned:amenity=bbq

how do you find out if the grill has been stolen or if it's a dedicated 
place for a bbq without a grill ?

does the user of the data need to know if the grill has been stolen
or if the place has simply never had a grill? in the end,
the only information you need to bring along is your own.

that's the absurdity of lifecycle namespaces : exept was:, all
the others provide information about how the absence of the element 
occurred (razed, demolished, destroyed....), whereas when you look
at the present, apart from a destroyed building whose rubble is still 
present, there's no information about how it happened.)