Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 03-Jan-18 01:59 PM, Warin wrote:


--- So OSM decaying things - with decisions 
leading to the next category


where something has ceased being used (note, observation and judgement 
required, fairly easy);

_disused_: -
where putting it back into service requires substantial work (note, 
observation and judgement required)

_abandoned:_
where restoration is uneconomic (note, observation and judgement required)
Some object to this as it requires judgement, but then so too does the 
step between disused to abandoned. This definition is not as fuzzy as 
that of disused to abandoned


_ruin/ruins/ruined:_ (ruined matches the tense of the above tags so 
would make sense that way)
where the feature no longer exists, there maybe traces, but few of 
them. (note, observation and judgement required though this is fairly 
easy)
_demolished/removed/was/destroyed/razed/gone/past/former_ - all the 
same thing as far as results on the ground - the feature no longer 
exists. So why the need to signify the method? In one word 
non-existent - and that might be the best tag to use?
Some want to put these in to try and stop additions of things that are 
not there e.g. a building in satellite imagery that has been 
demolished. So 'non_existent:' might be the best to hope for.





As well as non-existent there is 'absent' and that might be better as it 
is a single word without negation. Is it easily translated into other 
languages? It has a Latin base.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 04-Jan-18 02:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kevin Kenny 
> wrote:


By contrast, adding 'historic' and adjusting tagging to current use
is already a common practice among those who fix repurposed
features from the GNIS import. I didn't invent it.


Oh, and I oughtn't have needed to, but I just checked, and at least
one of the buildings in question is on the National Register of Historic
Places.  I'm guessing that in itself will not satisfy Warin as to its
'historic' nature, but I'm not sure what authority or combination of
authorities would.


Not a question of 'satisfying' me.
But rather finding the best tags for your use.
And then defining them.

The problem is that people 'miss use' tags that others use for something 
else.


historic may be used by some to simply indicate past use, and that to me 
is wrong.
Some significance historic event that is evident is some current 
feature.. fine.

I could not use historic to describe the past use of a feature.
I would use it to tag some significant historic event.
For example if a historically significant person did some historic thing 
at the school .. then I would tag that, I would not tag the school it 
self as historic.



Another example?
Some past churches have been converted into homes. I would not tag them 
as historic just to document there past use.




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kevin Kenny 
wrote:

> By contrast, adding 'historic' and adjusting tagging to current use
> is already a common practice among those who fix repurposed
> features from the GNIS import. I didn't invent it.
>
>
Oh, and I oughtn't have needed to, but I just checked, and at least
one of the buildings in question is on the National Register of Historic
Places.  I'm guessing that in itself will not satisfy Warin as to its
'historic' nature, but I'm not sure what authority or combination of
authorities would.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In which case I like marc tagging solution;
>
> building=school
> building:use=residential
>
> That tags 'what is on the ground'.
>

To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of cleverness
on the part of the renderer, particularly since 'building:use' is not
a common key at all.

By contrast, adding 'historic' and adjusting tagging to current use
is already a common practice among those who fix repurposed
features from the GNIS import. I didn't invent it.

'disused', 'abandoned', 'demolished', 'ruined', are all preferable
to 'historic' if they're accurate. Sometimes none of them fits.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 04-Jan-18 01:19 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> wrote:



If I had any idea when the schools went out of service! I'm really
not up to doing the historic research; they've not been schools
in my memory (and I'm an old man).


Does OSM record the past? Or does it record the present - 'what is
on the ground' ?


What is on the ground is a building that looks like an old 
schoolhouse. It has a stone

lintel with a carving that reads "DISTRICT SCHOOL Nº 4 (or whatever the
number was - I don't recall at the moment)". And it's now used as a
private house. Both the history and the current use are visible on the 
ground.


As far as I'm concerned, it is a building=detached 
historic:building=school.

It's not a disused, abandoned, or demolished school building, the building
is in fine repair. It is a historic school building that, despite 
being used as a

private residence, still bears obvious indicia of what it once was.

I shouldn't need to have to research its actual dates of service to be 
able
to tag that much, particularly when I'm repairing a GNIS node that 
mistakenly

asserts that it is currently a school.


In which case I like marc tagging solution;

building=school
building:use=residential

That tags 'what is on the ground'.

In what way is it historical?
Most things have history .. but 'historic'? i.e. "well known or 
important in history"
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If I had any idea when the schools went out of service! I'm really
> not up to doing the historic research; they've not been schools
> in my memory (and I'm an old man).
>
>
> Does OSM record the past? Or does it record the present - 'what is on the
> ground' ?
>

What is on the ground is a building that looks like an old schoolhouse. It
has a stone
lintel with a carving that reads "DISTRICT SCHOOL Nº 4 (or whatever the
number was - I don't recall at the moment)". And it's now used as a
private house. Both the history and the current use are visible on the
ground.

As far as I'm concerned, it is a building=detached historic:building=school.
It's not a disused, abandoned, or demolished school building, the building
is in fine repair. It is a historic school building that, despite being
used as a
private residence, still bears obvious indicia of what it once was.

I shouldn't need to have to research its actual dates of service to be able
to tag that much, particularly when I'm repairing a GNIS node that
mistakenly
asserts that it is currently a school.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] cycleway:both=no in StreetComplete

[Fernando Trebien]

Tag absence has never been defined clearly in OSM. Some think of it as
meaning "the tag has the default value," others think "the value of the tag
is still unknown," which seems to be the most common understanding (that's
why noname=* exists).

I always add tags in their default value to express that the value is known
and has been surveyed, cycleways included. (though in the case of cycleways
I usually only add them around existing cycleways to avoid confusion and to
prevent mappers - especially those using iD - from combining sequential
ways without getting a warning)

Em 25 de dez de 2017 23:34, "Dave Swarthout" 
escreveu:

> This sounds similar to those that suggested adding oneway=no to all
> streets that are not explicitly tagged as oneway=yes. All roads without
> cycleways could conceivably be tagged this way.
> Unless there is some cause for such a tag, for example, noting that a
> cycleway once existed here but is no longer present, this tag is totally
> unnecessary and adds needless data to OSM.
>
> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:50 AM, marc marc 
> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Le 26. 12. 17 à 00:22, Dave F a écrit :
>>
>> > There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being
>> > added by users of StreetComplete.
>> >
>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990
>> >
>> > There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit
>> > ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no
>> > suggests that a cycleway could exist in one direction.
>>
>> I agree that cycleway:both=no is not a good tag.
>> cycleway=no is better.
>>
>> > What is the reason the developers aren't using the established tagging
>> > scheme:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway
>>
>> ask the dev :)
>>
>> > Note under 'cycleway=no' as a tag of "dubious usefulness".
>>
>> I could help to see what road have been surveyed and somebody see that
>> this road doesn't have a cycleway. Put in urban area, it's a (minor)
>> added value. Without a cycleway tag, the cycleway is unknown.
>>
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>
>> it's also a dubious usefulness :)
>>
>> Regards,
>> Marc
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Swarthout
> Homer, Alaska
> Chiang Mai, Thailand
> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 04-Jan-18 09:31 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Richard > wrote:


> Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article
does not
> appear to contemplate.

I have changed the wiki article to mention this. However most of the
current use of "historic:*" seems to be for other purposes so it
is easily
a bit confusing.
For your kind of use the "date namespace" may be an alternative.


If I had any idea when the schools went out of service! I'm really
not up to doing the historic research; they've not been schools
in my memory (and I'm an old man).


Does OSM record the past? Or does it record the present - 'what is on 
the ground' ?


I think it is a case for OHM ... record it there as a school - best 
estimates of dates with a fixme for those that want it more accurate?




I was mostly trying to clean up no-longer-schools
that came in from the GNIS import, and didn't want them to be
deleted altogether when they're still visible on the ground.


In OSM .. put it in as a comment?
I think it is a detail that does not require rendering.
Think that is possibly the best solution?
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Richard]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:31:52PM -0500, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Richard  wrote:
> 
> > > Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not
> > > appear to contemplate.
> >
> > I have changed the wiki article to mention this. However most of the
> > current use of "historic:*" seems to be for other purposes so it is easily
> > a bit confusing.
> > For your kind of use the "date namespace" may be an alternative.
> >
> 
> If I had any idea when the schools went out of service! I'm really
> not up to doing the historic research; they've not been schools
> in my memory (and I'm an old man).

good point.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[marc marc]

Le 03. 01. 18 à 21:17, Kevin Kenny a écrit :
> I've used this to tag things that have been
> repurposed; for instance, a private home that was once a schoolhouse,
> still bears the school's name on the lintel, looks for all the world like
> an old schoolhouse, but is nevertheless a private home.

repurposed is not the same as historic nor previous state.
if the building currently look like a school: building=school
if the building currently is using for residential building:use=residential

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Kevin Kenny]

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Richard  wrote:

> > Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not
> > appear to contemplate.
>
> I have changed the wiki article to mention this. However most of the
> current use of "historic:*" seems to be for other purposes so it is easily
> a bit confusing.
> For your kind of use the "date namespace" may be an alternative.
>

If I had any idea when the schools went out of service! I'm really
not up to doing the historic research; they've not been schools
in my memory (and I'm an old man).

I was mostly trying to clean up no-longer-schools
that came in from the GNIS import, and didn't want them to be
deleted altogether when they're still visible on the ground.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Richard]

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:17:44PM -0500, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> > historic:  used for things that are historic. Being historic does not
> > imply the state of repair, use or where they are in their life cycle.
> >
> 
> For want of anything better, I've used this to tag things that have been
> repurposed; for instance, a private home that was once a schoolhouse,
> still bears the school's name on the lintel, looks for all the world like
> an old schoolhouse, but is nevertheless a private home.
> 
> Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not
> appear to contemplate.

I have changed the wiki article to mention this. However most of the 
current use of "historic:*" seems to be for other purposes so it is easily 
a bit confusing.
For your kind of use the "date namespace" may be an alternative.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Warin]

On 04-Jan-18 06:49 AM, yo paseopor wrote:
No, In my opinion is not a good idea to delete an existing thing in 
OSM. History is also part of OSM. Why do we have to respect the 
historic thing in a node or way not deleting them if then we then 
delete the whole thing.


I am saying 'historic' is not part of the life cycle. I am not deleting 
it from OSM .. but moving it out of the 'life cycle' category.


Lifecycle prefix can achieve these items inside OSM. Also it is not a 
good idea to expulse the information to other third or related 
projects...that one day can be gone. Because if the info is in OSM one 
day other related project can recover the map with that data (e.g. 
parking map). If the information is in other related project, when the 
project dies (as Mapzen for example) , information dies too.


OSM could die too. So where would the data be then?

Using OHM to record the historic data should be fine.

I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* with 
start and end dates .. that records what was there then, not its present 
state ...
Some of this 'disused:railway' is now gone .. built over by roads, 
houses factories and holes in the ground. It is not there in any way 
other than memory.

Some of it has been removed, but you can see where it was.

My difficulty is in tagging these various states - beyond abandoned: .. 
to me there are 2 further states;

 - a ruin or ruins or ruined.
- no longer there - non_existent. Presently used tags of 'removed' and 
'demolished' have implications as to how the thing was made non 
existent, and that I don't know.


If the info disturb one good idea would be change osm-carto, the 
render, but no the database as it is not a good idea in other 
situations. We don't map for the render.

Do we map what is not there? Ghosts or the past?

What is OSM for? To me navigation - what is there on the ground now so I 
can use that to navigate by.

So things that are gone would be simply clutter and have no relevance.
And things that are visible I would like rendered.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> historic:  used for things that are historic. Being historic does not
> imply the state of repair, use or where they are in their life cycle.
>

For want of anything better, I've used this to tag things that have been
repurposed; for instance, a private home that was once a schoolhouse,
still bears the school's name on the lintel, looks for all the world like
an old schoolhouse, but is nevertheless a private home.

Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not
appear to contemplate.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[yo paseopor]

No, In my opinion is not a good idea to delete an existing thing in OSM.
History is also part of OSM. Why do we have to respect the historic thing
in a node or way not deleting them if then we then delete the whole thing.
Lifecycle prefix can achieve these items inside OSM. Also it is not a good
idea to expulse the information to other third or related projects...that
one day can be gone. Because if the info is in OSM one day other related
project can recover the map with that data (e.g. parking map). If the
information is in other related project, when the project dies (as Mapzen
for example) , information dies too. If the info disturb one good idea
would be change osm-carto, the render, but no the database as it is not a
good idea in other situations. We don't map for the render.

Salut i història (Health and History)
yopaseopor
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

[Richard]

> 
> From the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
> 
> I disagree with the use of this for life cycle;
> 
> historic:  used for things that are historic. Being historic does not imply
> the state of repair, use or where they are in their life cycle.

mee too. But as there are really quite a few uses of it in the database we 
should
look how it is used currently to see if and how the description should be 
changed.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging