building=disused

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

building=disused

Andy Mabbett
JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
me what to use instead.

On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
[[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.

Is JOSM correct, what's the preferred alternative, and why is there no
easily-found documntation for this common use case?

--
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

Re: building=disused

Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
> me what to use instead.
>
> On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
> [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
> how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.
>
> Is JOSM correct, what's the preferred alternative, and why is there no
> easily-found documntation for this common use case?

If I recall correctly, JOSM favours lifecycle prefixes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, so you'd tag
`disused:building=*` or `abandoned:building=*` depending on how much
disrepair the building has fallen into. But take that with a grain of
salt because I'm speaking from the special kind of ignorance that
results from paying too much attention to this mailing list and the
Wiki.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: building=disused

Paul Allen
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
If I recall correctly, JOSM favours lifecycle prefixes
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, so you'd tag
`disused:building=*` or `abandoned:building=*` depending on how much
disrepair the building has fallen into.

The downside of that is that, the last time I checked, standard carto doesn't
render disused:building=*.  The last time this was discussed, some of us
suggested that disused: applied to physical objects should not stop them
being rendered.  It makes sense to no longer render
disused:amenity=place_of_worship as a place of worship but it does not make
sense to not render disused physical objects.  As I recall, the best suggestion
anyone could come up with was use the deprecated disused=yes for
physical objects (not perfect for other reasons, but the best we have).

Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently.  But the
standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done.

--
Paul


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

Re: building=disused

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett
Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:02, Andy Mabbett <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
> me what to use instead.
>
> On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
> [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
> how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.
>
> Is JOSM correct, what's the preferred alternative, and why is there no
> easily-found documntation for this common use case?

If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
used as a pub still remains a building=church.

Therefore, for a disused building, i'd leave the building=* tag and
add disused=yes. (The alternative tagging using lifecycle prefixes,
disused:building=*, isn't rendered.)

Regards

Markus

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

Re: building=disused

Kevin Kenny-3
In reply to this post by Paul Allen
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:22 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently.  But the
> standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done.

Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag
for the renderer.'

Sometimes, even when I propose tagging that isn't _incorrect_, but
only less precise than the tagging that someone favours.

For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
that fall in the area of, 'is a structure this decrepit still a
building?' - and that ontologic question triggers endless debates
here.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: building=disused

Markus-5
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
> indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
> 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
> that fall in the area of, 'is a structure this decrepit still a
> building?' - and that ontologic question triggers endless debates
> here.

Is it really the shop that is disused and not the building in which
the shop is located?

Actually, i never use disused: on businesses because it feels wrong;
either i remove them or i prefix them with was: . For example,
building=commercial + disused=yes on the area and was:shop=supermarket
+ name=* on a node within.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: building=disused

Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:03 PM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is
> > indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or
> > 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings
> > that fall in the area of, 'is a structure this decrepit still a
> > building?' - and that ontologic question triggers endless debates
> > here.
>
> Is it really the shop that is disused and not the building in which
> the shop is located?

I think that the point has just been reinforced that debates over
subtle ontologic questions, such as "is the building that the shop
occupies a shop, or not?" are the usual outcome of this sort of
discussion,

A philosopher cares. A data consumer, particularly an automated one,
likely does not. Any of the above taggings result in the conclusion:
"Building here. Shop was once here, but no longer is." - thus
satisfying those who are searching for a shop and don't want to find a
closed one, those looking to navigate and being told to expect a
disused shop on the street corner, and even those searching for
disused commercial properties to redevelop.

--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin

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

Re: building=disused

Marc M.
In reply to this post by Markus-5
Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit :
> If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
> building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
> used as a pub still remains a building=church.

I fully agree with that.
note that building:use may record the current use.
therefore building:use=vacant or =none or =no fit the request.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: building=disused

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 20:21, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I think that the point has just been reinforced that debates over
> subtle ontologic questions, such as "is the building that the shop
> occupies a shop, or not?" are the usual outcome of this sort of
> discussion,

My point was that the different uses of disused: and disused=yes may
not be as problematical ("tagging for the renderer") as they seem, but
that there seem to be valid reasons for it.

Regards

Markus

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

Re: building=disused

Warin
In reply to this post by Marc M.
On 15/1/20 6:32 am, marc marc wrote:
Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit :
If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
used as a pub still remains a building=church.
I fully agree with that.
note that building:use may record the current use.
therefore building:use=vacant or =none or =no fit the request.

    
And I would disagree. 

    
A building that is 'in use' is maintained. 
A building that is 'disused' is not maintained, the paint work will weather, glass become dirty .. roof leak, locks freeze. Generally they look disheveled.  
While still a building it is not the same as a building in use. 

    
If you tag 'disused=yes' ... how is that rendered? I think it is rendered the same as if the tag was not there... so it is of no use for rendering in the 'standard' map. 
And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical objects??? 
They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some think they should be rendered, but how is that rendering to be done? 
A good answer to that question may well see the 'standard' render take action, otherwise there is no hope. 




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

Re: building=disused

Marc Gemis
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical objects???
> They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some think they should be rendered, but how is that rendering to be done?
> A good answer to that question may well see the 'standard' render take action, otherwise there is no hope.


I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants
to show buildings that were used as shop, but are now vacant/disused,
might show them very prominent.
A map showing windmills might show working windmills in black and
disused one in grey or without vanes or ...

On a general-purpose map, like osm.org, I don't know.

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

Re: building=disused

Marc M.
In reply to this post by Warin
Le 15.01.20 à 05:15, Warin a écrit :

> On 15/1/20 6:32 am, marc marc wrote:
>> Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit :
>>> If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the
>>> building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now
>>> used as a pub still remains a building=church.
>> I fully agree with that.
>> note that building:use may record the current use.
>> therefore building:use=vacant or =none or =no fit the request.
>
> And I would disagree.
>
> A building that is 'in use' is maintained.
>
> A building that is 'disused' is not maintained, the paint work will weather, glass become dirty .. roof leak, locks freeze. Generally they look disheveled. 


The village church is not painted and i wonder when someone cleans the
windows of the church here.
Anyway I am unable to tell the difference in appearance between a church
whose windows have been cleaned and a church whose windows have not been
cleaned.
I'm not talking about a building whose roof is damaged, that's no longer
disused, the work to use it is much more consequent.
in the industrial zone, there's been a disused building for as long as
i've known it. yet the appearance is still that of an industrial
building. if i ask a passerby what that building looks like, that's
probably what he'll tell me. The difference with the next building
is there's a "for rent" sign.
what other appearance value do you want to create?
building=disused_industrial: an industrial building where windows
have not been maintained recently or with a "to rent" sign on it ?

> If you tag 'disused=yes' ... how is that rendered?

it depends on the wish of the map style, which is not the right place
to discuss.
one renderer may choose to ignore it, another may choose to use a
lighter color, another may choose to display it in red to highlight
areas to be reassigned.
all this is possible with building:use=vacant/no, disused:building=*
and disused=yes.
but to me, disused:building=* is a bad/yrong idea, there's still
a building present, so we should keep a building=*

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

Re: building=disused

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Marc Gemis
Am Mi., 15. Jan. 2020 um 08:03 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical objects???

I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants
to show buildings that were used as shop, but are now vacant/disused,
might show them very prominent.
A map showing windmills might show working windmills in black and
disused one in grey or without vanes or ...


it generally depends on the kind of object. Some might merit rendering, others would better be ignored all together (because there's very limited space on the map and they will generally not be worth showing even
if there would be sufficient space). On a general purpose map, a building is a building, and it doesn't matter whether it is used or not (and it could be reused any time), as long as it hasn't deteriorated to a ruin (has significantly changed nature), in which case a mere "disused" would be not appropriate any more. I am not saying it isn't interesting to anybody or there won't be subtle differences between an used and an unused building, just that it isn't sufficiently significant (IMHO) to merit different treatment.

On the other hand, many amenities, even though they often have a physical "body", are not useful or interesting to show at all when they are not in use, e.g. telephone booths, mail boxes, drinking fountains, generally small items, while bigger items (train stations, post offices, quarries etc.) are probably significant enough even for a general purpose map to be shown somehow.

Cheers,
Martin

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

Re: building=disused

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Warin



15 Jan 2020, 05:15 by [hidden email]:
If you tag 'disused=yes' ... how is that rendered?
It depends on what author of map style wanted.
For example it is unlikely to be supported in OSM Carto, as this style
is already rendering many different things and distinctions.

And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical objects??? They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some think they should be rendered
Again, depends on the map style.

And all of that is offtopic here in this mailing list.


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

Re: building=disused

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Markus-5
14 Jan 2020, 20:02 by [hidden email]:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny <[hidden email]> wrote:
Actually, i never use disused: on businesses because it feels wrong;
It is OK for shops that are closed, but where their signage still remains.
either i remove them or i prefix them with was: . For example,
Shops that are gone without a trace almost always can be simply deleted.
I encountered cases of destroyed building remapped from aerials,
so leaving demolished:building=* geometry + note=* makes sense.

But is there a real danger of people mapping shops based on their outdated memories?


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

Re: building=disused

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Kevin Kenny-3



14 Jan 2020, 19:42 by [hidden email]:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:22 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently. But the
standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done.

Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag
for the renderer.'
Standard carto is useful to check whatever things went OK.
More than once thanks to rendering I spotted horrific mistakes in what I added.
But it should not be treated as an ultimate and the perfect judge.

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

Re: building=disused

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett
14 Jan 2020, 18:59 by [hidden email]:
JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell
me what to use instead.

On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor
[[Tag:building=disused]] exist
It exists now.
and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout
how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings.
It is a good idea to mention this also at that page.

Is JOSM correct, what's the preferred alternative
disused=yes
JOSM validator message probably can be improved to mention this,
but tag is a quite rare one
why is there no
easily-found documntation for this common use case?
Because noone created it so far.

It exists now at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:building%3Ddisused


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

Re: building=disused

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Andy Mabbett
14 Jan 2020, 18:59 by [hidden email]:
no easily-found documntation for this common use case?
BTW, thanks for reporting the issue. I was unaware that
wiki pages for this specific values would be useful.

I also created family of pages for
group of other problematic tags and I will probably
create for other similar values.

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

Re: building=disused

Warin
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
On 15/1/20 7:27 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
Am Mi., 15. Jan. 2020 um 08:03 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis <[hidden email]>:
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
> And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical objects???

I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants
to show buildings that were used as shop, but are now vacant/disused,
might show them very prominent.
A map showing windmills might show working windmills in black and
disused one in grey or without vanes or ...


it generally depends on the kind of object. Some might merit rendering, others would better be ignored all together (because there's very limited space on the map and they will generally not be worth showing even
if there would be sufficient space). On a general purpose map, a building is a building, and it doesn't matter whether it is used or not (and it could be reused any time), as long as it hasn't deteriorated to a ruin (has significantly changed nature), in which case a mere "disused" would be not appropriate any more. I am not saying it isn't interesting to anybody or there won't be subtle differences between an used and an unused building, just that it isn't sufficiently significant (IMHO) to merit different treatment.

On the other hand, many amenities, even though they often have a physical "body", are not useful or interesting to show at all when they are not in use, e.g. telephone booths, mail boxes, drinking fountains, generally small items, while bigger items (train stations, post offices, quarries etc.) are probably significant enough even for a general purpose map to be shown somehow.


If the thing is still physically present then it is still of use from a navigation point of view.

From an ease of rendering it would be useful to have a way of rendering any disused:* object.


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

Re: building=disused

Paul Allen
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:39, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

If the thing is still physically present then it is still of use from a navigation point of view.

+1

From an ease of rendering it would be useful to have a way of rendering any disused:* object.

For physical objects, yes.  You wouldn't want disused:amenity=place_of_worship
to be rendered as a place of worship but you do want disused:building=yes to be
rendered.  Standard carto doesn't work that way, don't know about any of the others
because as soon as I realized standard carto doesn't work that way, I stopped
tagging physical objects with a disused: prefix.

Currently, the best you can do is use the deprecated disused=yes for physical
objects to get the desired behaviour with standard carto.  There is no guarantee
that other renderers will honour that.  There is no guarantee that standard carto
will continue to honour that.

Cue the endless arguments about standard carto not being the only fruit, don't
tag for the renderer, etc.  Because this is OSM, and rule one of OSM is that
we don't do joined-up thinking.  So give up any hope that we'll get an
agreement with the most common renderers to have a sensible way of tagging
disused buildings so that they render at all (better still would be some sort of
slight difference from buildings that aren't disused, but that will probably never
happen).

Yes, I'm feeling cynical right now.  That's because I remember the other times
this has come up here.

--
Paul

 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
123