Removing an ATM

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

Removing an ATM

MARLIN LUKE
Hi,

I've read in the wiki (and on this list) that it's best to avoid loosing history.
I have an ATM mapped in a street which does not exist anymore (apparently since 2014).

Should I:
-Remove the tag and keep a blank point? (triggers a message on iD, I'm not even sure I can save the changes)
-Remove the point altogether and lose the history?
-Another solution?

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

Re: Removing an ATM

marc marc
Le 09.07.19 à 15:04, MARLIN LUKE a écrit :
> I've read in the wiki (and on this list) that it's best to avoid loosing
> history.

the usecase is when a poi change his name : don't delete+create an new
the poi, but update the name

> -Remove the tag and keep a blank point?
no.

> -Remove the point altogether and lose the history?

you may

> -Another solution?

some prefix all tag with was: or similar
it allows the next contributor who sees it in a photo to avoid making
the mistake of adding the object you deleted

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

Re: Removing an ATM

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by MARLIN LUKE


sent from a phone

On 9. Jul 2019, at 15:04, MARLIN LUKE <[hidden email]> wrote:

Should I:
-Remove the tag and keep a blank point? (triggers a message on iD, I'm not even sure I can save the changes)
-Remove the point altogether and lose the history?
-Another solution?


if the node is not used by other objects (ways, relations), and has no tags referring to different things that aren’t the atm, it seems best in this case to remove the node.

It will still remain in the history, it will only be a little bit more effort to find it.

Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: Removing an ATM

Paul Allen
In reply to this post by marc marc
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 14:11, marc marc <[hidden email]> wrote:

some prefix all tag with was: or similar
it allows the next contributor who sees it in a photo to avoid making
the mistake of adding the object you deleted

I've used was for things that are still there but have changed their functionality.  Like
was:amenity=place_of_church on a building=church that is no longer an active
place of worship but the building itself is still there and in good condition and being
used for something else.  However, if the church has closed but is not being used
for any other purpose then disused:amenity=church would be more appropriate.

Where an object is no longer physically present, such as a telephone booth that has
been removed, then removed:amenity=telephone.  In the hope that anybody using
old imagery and tries to add the phone booth will spot that node saying it was
there but has been removed.

So if there's an ATM physically present but the power has been permanently turned
off then disused:amenity=atm.  More likely, the machine has been removed, so
removed:amenity=atm.  Only if the ATM were still physically present but it had been
converted to some other use (like an artwork or a fish tank or something) would
was:amenitry=atm fit.

Of course, this is OSM, so you're free to do whatever you like, and the above is just my
opinion.

--
Paul


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

Re: Removing an ATM

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 9. Jul 2019, at 15:57, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Where an object is no longer physically present, such as a telephone booth that has
> been removed, then removed:amenity=telephone.


while disused and abandoned features make sense and can be observed, may help for orientation or might be reactivated, the same is not true for “removed”. There may be exceptional situations where it could still make sense (like you mention, e.g. to prevent people from recreating them from outdated aerial imagery), but I would not expect an atm or a telephone booth to be worth of mapping them after they have been removed. Delete them.

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

Re: Removing an ATM

Paul Allen
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 15:10, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jul 2019, at 15:57, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Where an object is no longer physically present, such as a telephone booth that has
> been removed, then removed:amenity=telephone.

while disused and abandoned features make sense and can be observed, may help for orientation or might be reactivated,

Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).  So they don't help anyone orient
themselves.  The underlying physical object does, but not its prior usage (unless the old
signage is still there), but that still doesn't help because it's not rendered.
 
the same is not true for “removed”. There may be exceptional situations where it could still make sense (like you mention, e.g. to prevent people from recreating them from outdated aerial imagery), but I would not expect an atm or a telephone booth to be worth of mapping them after they have been removed.

As with disused: and abandoned:, the only real purpose is to prevent mappers re-instating the
object based upon out-of-date information.

As it happens, I recently removed two phone boxes with removed:amenity=telephone.  Because
they were in front of a building of which many different images exist on the net.  Such as this
and it's a building a lot of people take pictures of (partly because of the Russian cannon).
Many of those pictures include those two phone booths which are no longer there.  Definitely
worth mapping with the removed prefix, because any mapper coming across one of those
many photographs is likely to add the omitted phone booths.

It's far less likely that somebody would reinstate a removed ATM because there are unlikely to
be many photographs of it floating around the net  But it does no harm to turn amenity=atm
into removed:amenity=atm, so I wouldn't object to anybody doing so.

--
Paul


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

Re: Removing an ATM

Andy Townsend
On 09/07/2019 15:27, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 15:10, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jul 2019, at 15:57, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Where an object is no longer physically present, such as a telephone booth that has
> been removed, then removed:amenity=telephone.

while disused and abandoned features make sense and can be observed, may help for orientation or might be reactivated,

Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).

... but depending on the feature, they may do elsewhere.

I've no idea if anyone renders disused ATMs (I don't) but on cue I've just remembered and updated https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5179225222 rather than just removing it in case someone does.  I'm sure it'll get reinstated at some point, and I'll change the tagging back.  If the ATM had actually been removed I'd have just deleted it, but in this case it is still there

Plenty of other "disused / no longer useful for the original purpose" are major landscape features that deserve to be recorded, and sometimes the best tag really is disused:foo=bar.

Best Regards,

Andy




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

Re: Removing an ATM

Paul Allen
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 15:43, Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 09/07/2019 15:27, Paul Allen wrote:
Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).

... but depending on the feature, they may do elsewhere.


Indeed.  That's why I added the proviso about standard carto.  OpenRailwayMap renders
disused/abandoned railways.  As does (for unknown reasons) French carto.  And anything that
is tagged can be rendered by uMap with appropriate overpass-turbo queries.

Plenty of other "disused / no longer useful for the original purpose" are major landscape features that deserve to be recorded, and sometimes the best tag really is disused:foo=bar.

There are cases where I've used disused=yes rather than disused:foo=bar.  It is fairly standard
on UK maps in general to render, or at least label, disused quarries.  Because they're holes in
the ground, can present hazards, and may be of use for navigation.  So in this particular case
I prefer landuse=quarry + disused=yes to disused:landuse=quarry.  A working quarry observed
on a Sunday may be difficult to distinguish from a disused quarry.  Tagging for the renderer
or choosing between valid alternative tagging schemes?  I tag, you decide.

--
Paul


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

Re: Removing an ATM

Tordanik
In reply to this post by MARLIN LUKE
On 09.07.19 15:04, MARLIN LUKE wrote:
> I have an ATM mapped in a street which does not exist anymore
> (apparently since 2014).

Historic features should not be mapped in OSM:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Good_practice#Don.27t_map_historic_events_and_historic_features

Therefore, an object which no longer exists can simply be deleted.
The editing history is still stored in our database even after an object
is deleted, so you don't need to worry about permanently losing data.

Tobias

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

Re: Removing an ATM

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Paul Allen


sent from a phone

On 9. Jul 2019, at 17:00, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

on UK maps in general to render, or at least label, disused quarries.  Because they're holes in
the ground, can present hazards, and may be of use for navigation.  So in this particular case
I prefer landuse=quarry + disused=yes to disused:landuse=quarry. 


I agree for quarries, arguably they mostly remain quarries even when disused. If you see this as a feature (like company, name, address, etc) it also is an unfortunate choice for the key, something similar to man_made=works would seem better for this. 

The wiki is not very explicit if this is about a quarry or land used as a quarry.

But it suggests to add disused as a property and not in the key(unless it is not recognizable as a quarry):

Inactive and former quarriesEdit

Quarries that are out of use but still carry many characteristics of a quarry shall be tagges as landuse=quarry and  disused=yes.


Cheers, Martin 

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

Re: Removing an ATM

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



9 lip 2019, 17:00 od [hidden email]:
I prefer landuse=quarry + disused=yes to disused:landuse=quarry.  A working quarry observed
on a Sunday may be difficult to distinguish from a disused quarry.  Tagging for the renderer
or choosing between valid alternative tagging schemes?  I tag, you decide.
I consider landuse=quarry to represent
very specific terrain created by quarrying.

So landuse=quarry for disused one, is perfectly fine.

But I would remove one that would be
gone, for example filled in.

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

Re: Removing an ATM

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by MARLIN LUKE
On 09/07/2019 14:04, MARLIN LUKE wrote:
Hi,

I've read in the wiki (and on this list) that it's best to avoid loosing history.

This refers to the edit history of an object ie How many times it's been amended, by whom, & what got changed.

I have an ATM mapped in a street which does not exist anymore (apparently since 2014).

Should I:

-Remove the point altogether and lose the history?

Yes.
From: https://www.openstreetmap.org/welcome

"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and current"

If it doesn't exist in the real world then it shouldn't exist in OSM.

Even after you remove it the database still has a record of it's existence.

DaveF

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

Re: Removing an ATM

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



9 lip 2019, 16:27 od [hidden email]:
Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).  So they don't help anyone orient
themselves. 
OSM Carto is not a sole map style.
As with disused: and abandoned:, the only real purpose is to prevent mappers re-instating the
object based upon out-of-date information.
Not only - some data consumers 
may want to include objects present
but unused.

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

Re: Removing an ATM

MARLIN LUKE
Thanks everyone for the input.

I've noted that "removed:" could be interesting in specific cases, however considering where this one is (and it's removal date!), I deleted it.

De : Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]>
Envoyé : mardi 9 juillet 2019 17:23
Cc : Tag discussion, strategy and related tools
Objet : Re: [Tagging] Removing an ATM
 



9 lip 2019, 16:27 od [hidden email]:
Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).  So they don't help anyone orient
themselves. 
OSM Carto is not a sole map style.
As with disused: and abandoned:, the only real purpose is to prevent mappers re-instating the
object based upon out-of-date information.
Not only - some data consumers 
may want to include objects present
but unused.

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

Re: Removing an ATM

Warin
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
On 10/07/19 00:42, Andy Townsend wrote:
On 09/07/2019 15:27, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 9 Jul 2019 at 15:10, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jul 2019, at 15:57, Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Where an object is no longer physically present, such as a telephone booth that has
> been removed, then removed:amenity=telephone.

while disused and abandoned features make sense and can be observed, may help for orientation or might be reactivated,

Not really.  They don't get rendered (on standard carto).

... but depending on the feature, they may do elsewhere.

I've no idea if anyone renders disused ATMs (I don't) but on cue I've just remembered and updated https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/5179225222 rather than just removing it in case someone does.  I'm sure it'll get reinstated at some point, and I'll change the tagging back.  If the ATM had actually been removed I'd have just deleted it, but in this case it is still there

Plenty of other "disused / no longer useful for the original purpose" are major landscape features that deserve to be recorded, and sometimes the best tag really is disused:foo=bar.


+1.

They form part of my navigational landscape. 

E.g. a pub that has not been used for a century and falling down .. is the only building for quite some distance. It is a navigational feature that all recognise.

A path that is now overgrown .. yet going past it locates you on the map, provided the map has it and you recognise it.



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