Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
18 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Joseph Eisenberg
I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
(namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.

The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
page suggests it is deprecated.

Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate
the deleted pages and change the status to something other than
obsolete/deprecated?

I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.

Joseph

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Tobias Zwick
Sounds to me that those pages were incorrectly deleted. Only because someone can tag the abandonedness of a single tag of a feature, doesn't mean that the tag that applies to the whole feature is deprecated.

Actually, sine best practice is to map each feature as an own element (unless maybe both features encompass the whole element, i.e. a building), the plain non-namespace tag would probably be used in the vast majority of cases.

Even in cases where two or more features encompass the whole object, I can't really think of a use case where the namespacing made sense: For example a disused hotel in a stately building may be mapped on one element, but then, wouldn't the whole building not also be diused?

Tobias

On July 29, 2019 8:23:42 AM GMT+02:00, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
>incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
>deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
>(namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.
>
>The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
>though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
>page suggests it is deprecated.
>
>Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate
>the deleted pages and change the status to something other than
>obsolete/deprecated?
>
>I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
>disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.
>
>Joseph
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Hi,

On 29.07.19 08:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
> incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
> deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
> (namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.
>
> The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
> though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
> page suggests it is deprecated.

Frankly, I am worried about the obsession with tag "statuses". I
couldn't care less whether "abandoned=yes" was obsolete, deprecated, in
use, or even voted on; "negating tags" like this is are dangerous and
problematic and the wiki should educate people about this, full stop.

If we explain to people why negating tags are problematic then they will
understand and not use them; this is far better than telling them "uh-oh
you've used a tag that is classified as a type-X tag under section Y of
the tag classification regulations, don't do it!"

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

dieterdreist
Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <[hidden email]>:

Frankly, I am worried about the obsession with tag "statuses". I
couldn't care less whether "abandoned=yes" was obsolete, deprecated, in
use, or even voted on; "negating tags" like this is are dangerous and
problematic and the wiki should educate people about this, full stop.


yes, generally yes, although there may be exceptions. E.g. landuse=quarry. An abandoned or disused quarry may still be seen as a quarry by the people living there. In this case, abandoned=yes doesn't negate the tags, it is a qualifier about activity.




If we explain to people why negating tags are problematic then they will
understand and not use them; this is far better than telling them "uh-oh
you've used a tag that is classified as a type-X tag under section Y of
the tag classification regulations, don't do it!"



+1

By the way, it seems the wiki does not show "statuses" correctly for historic page revisions: it shows a status (the current one?) where there is none set in the template, and it shows statuses that haven't been in existence when the revision was published.
 
Cheers,
Martin


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.

It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced version, when
applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).

It's fine with usages.  I've mapped pubs that have recently closed and it is uncertain if they
will re-open as a pub, re-open as something else, be turned into a residence or the
building itself become disused.  I've been tagging them as disused:amenity=pub
Some people with what I view as an over-strict interpretation of rules may say that's
mapping the history of the thing and OSM doesn't map history, but I ignore them.

However, there are several buildings in my town that are clearly disused.  Peeling paintwork,
broken windows, no sign of activity for many years.  If I use disused:building=yes they
vanish from the map but they're observable in reality, which means the map doesn't
show something that is physically present.  Using disused=yes is a way around this.
Call it tagging for the renderer if you want, but it's not lying for the renderer.

So I'd argue these are not obsolete, should get their pages back, and both their pages and
the namespaced equivalents should get a brief note saying in which situation the namespaced
version may or may not be preferred.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
>> By the way, it seems the wiki does not show "statuses" correctly for historic page revisions: it shows a status (the current one?) where there is none set in the template, and it shows statuses that haven't been in existence when the revision was published.
>
>

This might be related to the new wikibase system?

Now missing things like status are pulled form the wikidata, and it
may not work properly for the page history?

I don't quite understand how it all works

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
Yes, buildings are a good example of a feature that can be disused or
even abandoned, but remain a building=house or building=barn.

I've recreated the pages. Please check them and make or suggest any
improvements needed:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:disused=yes

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:abandoned=yes

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:07 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
>> disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.
>
>
> It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced version, when
> applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).
>
> It's fine with usages.  I've mapped pubs that have recently closed and it is uncertain if they
> will re-open as a pub, re-open as something else, be turned into a residence or the
> building itself become disused.  I've been tagging them as disused:amenity=pub
> Some people with what I view as an over-strict interpretation of rules may say that's
> mapping the history of the thing and OSM doesn't map history, but I ignore them.
>
> However, there are several buildings in my town that are clearly disused.  Peeling paintwork,
> broken windows, no sign of activity for many years.  If I use disused:building=yes they
> vanish from the map but they're observable in reality, which means the map doesn't
> show something that is physically present.  Using disused=yes is a way around this.
> Call it tagging for the renderer if you want, but it's not lying for the renderer.
>
> So I'd argue these are not obsolete, should get their pages back, and both their pages and
> the namespaced equivalents should get a brief note saying in which situation the namespaced
> version may or may not be preferred.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:

It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced version, when
applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).

Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...


It's fine with usages.  I've mapped pubs that have recently closed and it is uncertain if they
will re-open as a pub, re-open as something else, be turned into a residence or the
building itself become disused.  I've been tagging them as disused:amenity=pub
Some people with what I view as an over-strict interpretation of rules may say that's
mapping the history of the thing and OSM doesn't map history, but I ignore them.

It's perfectly possible for renderers to make sense of namespaced tags (and even, with a bit more difficulty, tags such as "landuse=quarry; disused=yes") and do whatever they want with them (obligatory example https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1496 and https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20&lat=53.9994944&lon=-1.136121 ).

As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means for e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock was extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one that wanted to show holes in the ground would still show them.


However, there are several buildings in my town that are clearly disused.  Peeling paintwork,
broken windows, no sign of activity for many years.  If I use disused:building=yes they
vanish from the map but they're observable in reality, which means the map doesn't
show something that is physically present.  Using disused=yes is a way around this.
Call it tagging for the renderer if you want, but it's not lying for the renderer.

A building that isn't used for anything is still in actuality a building (until it falls or is knocked down), so I probably wouldn't use that tag personally, although there is mid-level usage in e.g. the UK: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/L9H .

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen



29 Jul 2019, 14:05 by [hidden email]:
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.

It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced version, when
applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).
Is there a case where making it visible would actually be useful?

For quarries or buildings disused/abandoned status is a property and is not changing
feature so it makes sense to use disused=yes and abandoned=yes.

Disuses building is still a building, only once it starts turning into ruin it
gets more questionable.

In case of shops it is fundamentally different - disused shop is no longer a shop.
If someone really wants to tag it (may to protect against accidental remapping
then disused:shop=* is preferable (and it makes no sense to render it in most cases)
Some people with what I view as an over-strict interpretation of rules may say that's
mapping the history of the thing and OSM doesn't map history, but I ignore them.
Is there some trace of the pub (maybe sign?) or danger of incorrect remapping?
Then it makes sense to keep it.

Though in cases where no trace is left I would delete it (yes, OSM doesn't map history).
However, there are several buildings in my town that are clearly disused.  Peeling paintwork,
broken windows, no sign of activity for many years.  If I use disused:building=yes they
vanish from the map but they're observable in reality, which means the map doesn't
show something that is physically present.  Using disused=yes is a way around this.
Call it tagging for the renderer if you want, but it's not lying for the renderer.
I would argue that disused=yes is preferable tagging for such feature and that it
is desirable for renderers and editors to encourage it.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
To be more exact someone decided to delete content and document prefix on the same page
instead of creating new one.

See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:disused:&diff=878757&oldid=862845


29 Jul 2019, 08:45 by [hidden email]:
Sounds to me that those pages were incorrectly deleted.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:43, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:

It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced version, when
applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).

Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...


There are other renderers to worry about, certainly.  But...

1) Not all of us have the luxury of running our own renderer which we can customize to
match our own requirements.

2) When I look at what other renderers do in comparison to standard carto, I find them lacking
in various different ways.  I don't think standard carto is perfect, but I find the others a lot
worse.  Especially the commercial ones that boast how much better they are than standard
carto, which generally put cosmetics (drop-shadowed buildings) ahead of presenting useful
information (house names/numbers).

As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means for e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock was extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one that wanted to show holes in the ground would still show them.

Another map might even show the two situations differently, in some way.  So that people who
wanted only to look for active quarries could find them whilst others who wanted to be warned
of dangerous holes in the ground in an area they intended to ramble would be happy.

A building that isn't used for anything is still in actuality a building (until it falls or is knocked down), so I probably wouldn't use that tag personally, although there is mid-level usage in e.g. the UK: https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/L9H .

This is where I think standard carto gets it wrong.  A disused:building=yes ought to be rendered
as a building but a disused:amenity=pub should not be rendered as a pub.  Instead a disused:
or abandoned: prefix renders everything it is applied to invisibly. Such things are fixable in theory,
but in practice they aren't.  The result is that mappers do what mappers do...

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:54, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

Is there a case where making it visible would actually be useful?

Yes, I would argue that disused physical objects should be rendered.  A disused:building=house
is still a house.  An abandoned:building=house is still a house.  Even ruins:building=house may
still be visible.  Disused non-physical objects should not be rendered: a disused:amenity=pub
is no longer a pub.  Except there are grey areas, such as disused sports pitches which are
maintained to some degree (weeds cut down occasionally) but no longer used.  They could
be re-activated for their original purpose.  Abandoned railway lines pose yet other problems.

For quarries or buildings disused/abandoned status is a property and is not changing
feature so it makes sense to use disused=yes and abandoned=yes.

Which we do only because (currently, on standard carto) disused:building=yes doesn't render.

In case of shops it is fundamentally different - disused shop is no longer a shop.
If someone really wants to tag it (may to protect against accidental remapping
then disused:shop=* is preferable (and it makes no sense to render it in most cases)

Depends.  It might be preferable to use shop=vacant is there is a strong probability (such
as zoning restrictions) which mean that it won't be converted into a domestic residence.

Is there some trace of the pub (maybe sign?) or danger of incorrect remapping?
Then it makes sense to keep it.

In one case I've mapped, yes.  It's a listed building with a distinctive old pub sign which
cannot be removed (because it's a listed building).  It closed a couple of years ago and
as far as I can tell is now a domestic residence.  A mapper passing by would assume it

Though in cases where no trace is left I would delete it (yes, OSM doesn't map history).

Again, near me there are several pubs that have closed but there is a prospect they will
re-open under new ownership.  One recently had a bad fire 6 or 7 months ago but has
just re-opened.

And then there are churches and chapels which have closed but not, as yet, been repurposed.
So building=chapel + disused:amenity=place_of_worship.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 14:43 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend <[hidden email]>:
On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:

It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the namespaced version, when
applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).

Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...



it is not just one renderer, OSM-Carto is often seen as standard implementation and a lot of people are taking it as template when they develop their own style. Generally the vast majority of data consumers does neither look at disused / abandoned=yes qualifiers, nor at them as prefixes. This applies to routing engines, rendering rules and all other kind of data consumers. Maybe there is someone looking at these "details", but most don't.


As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means for e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock was extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one that wanted to show holes in the ground would still show them.



that's a problem of tagging then. "landuse" is not suitable to represent a business. You need an additional tag for this. It might work as a shortcut in simple cases, but it is not generally working and is not in analogy to how we map factories or other industrial landuses for example.

Cheers,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Joseph Eisenberg
Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated.

Are they "in use" then?

According to https://taghistory.raifer.tech they've both increased in
number by about 3500 features in the past 12 months. In comparison,
disused:shop=* has been added about 3000 times in the same time
period.

On 7/29/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 14:43 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend <[hidden email]
>>:
>
>> On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>
>> It applies to more than just quarries.  The problem is that the
>> namespaced
>> version, when
>> applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto).
>>
>> Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...
>>
>
>
> it is not just one renderer, OSM-Carto is often seen as standard
> implementation and a lot of people are taking it as template when they
> develop their own style. Generally the vast majority of data consumers does
> neither look at disused / abandoned=yes qualifiers, nor at them as
> prefixes. This applies to routing engines, rendering rules and all other
> kind of data consumers. Maybe there is someone looking at these "details",
> but most don't.
>
>
> As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means for
>> e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock was
>> extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one that
>> wanted to show holes in the ground would still show them.
>>
>
>
> that's a problem of tagging then. "landuse" is not suitable to represent a
> business. You need an additional tag for this. It might work as a shortcut
> in simple cases, but it is not generally working and is not in analogy to
> how we map factories or other industrial landuses for example.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is
that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there, to
be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render.

Davef

On 29/07/2019 07:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
> incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
> deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
> (namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.
>
> The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
> though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
> page suggests it is deprecated.
>
> Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate
> the deleted pages and change the status to something other than
> obsolete/deprecated?
>
> I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
> disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.
>
> Joseph
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg



29 Jul 2019, 18:34 by [hidden email]:
Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated.

Are they "in use" then?
I would say that use is deprecated for things like shop=* and in use
for things like quarries, buildings, adits, bunkers etc

According to https://taghistory.raifer.tech they've both increased in
number by about 3500 features in the past 12 months. In comparison,
disused:shop=* has been added about 3000 times in the same time
period.

Not sure about growth, but usage for disused:railway and disused:amenity
is higher than of disused=shop.

There is also disused:highway, disused:aeroway, disused:landuse with a decent use.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Kevin Kenny-3
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:20 PM Mateusz Konieczny
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> I would say that use is deprecated for things like shop=* and in use
> for things like quarries, buildings, adits, bunkers etc

I wind up using a lifecycle prefix mostly when the former use is
recognizable, but there is another tag for what the thing has become.

Hence, combinations like 'highway=footway
abandoned:railway=narrow_gauge' (where aspects of the railroad can
still be seen) or 'landuse=brownfield disused:amenity=prison' (a
closed prison that the state is trying to redevelop for other uses),
or 'tourism=attraction historic=ruins ruins:building=hotel"
(historically important, burnt to the ground about eighty years ago,
the remaining stonework is architecturally interesting, and it's a
popular hiking destination)

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

Warin
In reply to this post by Tagging mailing list
On 30/07/19 02:55, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
> I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is
> that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there,
> to be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render.

That is a problem with that particular render. It is not a tagging problem.

If that particular render failed to display some other feature .. would
mappers then resort to tagging it some other way so it renders on that
particular render???

It appears that in order to get mappers to use the correct tagging one
particular render has to stop showing the 'obsolete' and 'depreciated' tags.
Similarly for incorrect mapping of relations with shared ways etc etc.


Mean while I am using tags that simply don't render on that particular
render .. because they are the absolutely correct tags to use for those
features.
I think too many are 'tagging for one renderer'.

>
> Davef
>
> On 29/07/2019 07:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
>> incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
>> deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
>> (namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.
>>
>> The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
>> though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
>> page suggests it is deprecated.
>>
>> Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate
>> the deleted pages and change the status to something other than
>> obsolete/deprecated?
>>
>> I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
>> disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.
>>
>> Joseph



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging