[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

I thought that using photographic examples in the proposal would make it
fairly clear, but apparently not.

If you come to a bench that is no longer there, "vandalised:" would not
apply. If the seats are damaged to an extend that you cannot sit on it
any longer, then it would. There is hope that the local authorities or
whoever puts up benches will fix it eventually, hence the "temporarily
out of order" in the infobox.

Graffiti doesn't appear spontanously on signposts covering only a
certain language; receivers don't just fall off a phone box, and I doubt
the local authorities would use those desctructive methods.

I don't know how to make it clearer to you.

You may use survey:date instead, if you like. I've expanded the
explanation on the wiki.

Anne

On 17/09/2023 13:08, Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 17.09.23 à 12:50, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit :
>> I'm proposing to establish the lifecycle prefix "vandalised:" which
>> has been in use for at least 8 years in some form
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Vandalised:
>
> I wonder if it makes sense to be so precise about "past" life cycles:
> you arrive at a place, the bench is no longer there
> Has it been dismantled? destroyed? vandalised ? unintentionally damaged?
>
> If you're not there at the precise moment of the change of state,
> the only thing you can see is that the bench is no longer there
> or isn't in a working state anymore
> 2 "past" lifecycles seems sufficient to me (was: for when there's
> nothing left, damaged or equivalent for when there's something
> non-functional)
>
> PS : and what's the meaning of vandalised:last_check ?
> someone vandalised your last_check ?
> it seems more logical to me to put survey:date
> if you want to store this meta data
>
> Regards,
> Marrc
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging