[Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
I'm proposing to establish the lifecycle prefix "vandalised:" which has been in use for at least 8 years in some form, but hasn't been documented. This was triggered by noticing this one: https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11196545305 (unfortunately, I didn't take a photo). https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Vandalised: I'm not active in the forum, so if anyone wants to let people know there, that'd be fabulous. Cheers, Anne ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
sent from a phone > On 17 Sep 2023, at 14:12, Marc_marc wrote: > > 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 maybe, but there might be other ways to learn how it was damaged, someone could tell you, or the type of damage indicates it was vandalized. > 2 "past" lifecycles seems sufficient to me (was: for when there's nothing > left, damaged or equivalent for when there's something non-functional) was: can also be used for non-physical features (indeed most usage is with was:amenity) it doesn’t imply there is nothing left at all. There are already a lot of prefixes for similar lifecycle states, e.g. demolished, razed, destroyed, abandoned, ruins, from this point of view, “vandalized” would be one more, adding another nuance. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
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@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 14:59:27 +0100 Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > 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. While hiking, I come across a guidepost that's been sheared off two feet above the ground. Was it accidentally hit by a snowplow (thus, "destroyed:"), or was it deliberately pulled over by a snowmobiler (thus, "vandalized:")? -- Mark ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
On Sun, 17 Sept 2023 at 20:25, Mark Wagner wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 14:59:27 +0100 > Anne-Karoline Distel wrote: > > > 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. > > While hiking, I come across a guidepost that's been sheared off two > feet above the ground. Was it accidentally hit by a snowplow (thus, > "destroyed:"), or was it deliberately pulled over by a snowmobiler > (thus, "vandalized:")? +1. I think it would be better to use destroyed:=* (or damaged=yes -- depending on the severity of the vandalism, i.e., whether the object can still be used or not) in combination with damage:type=vandalism. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
sent from a phone > On 17 Sep 2023, at 20:25, Mark Wagner wrote: > > was it deliberately pulled over by a snowmobiler > (thus, "vandalized:") if you don’t know it you can remain on the save side and put “destroyed“ because this is what you see. It doesn’t mean there aren’t lots of other situations where you can be very clear something was deliberately destroyed/vandalized ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
I'm not that much in favour of such a tag: 1) it's not about the current state of the element, but more on the cause of it. 2) It's temporary (hopefully) Yves Le 17 septembre 2023 12:50:21 GMT+02:00, 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, but hasn't been documented. > >This was triggered by noticing this one: >https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/11196545305 (unfortunately, I didn't >take a photo). > >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal:Vandalised: > >I'm not active in the forum, so if anyone wants to let people know >there, that'd be fabulous. > > >Cheers, > >Anne > > >___ >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] [RFC] Feature Proposal - lifecycle prefix vandalised:
Le 17.09.23 à 15:59, Anne-Karoline Distel a écrit : 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. so vandalised for you mean "intentionally taken out of service but still there" ? life isn't all black and white : a bench with grafiti is vandalised and yet still usable -> amenity=bench is appropriate (and the grafiti is relegated to color or operational_status or whatever) a children's playground with one of the attractions unusable is still a playground and yet it is vandalised a phone box with a destroyed window has been damaged or vandalised, yet the phone may still be usable (and what's more, if you weren't there, there's no way of telling whether or not the window was destroyed intentionally or not) a road sign with a sticker or a small piece of graffiti is still usable as a sign, despite being vandalised. that's why using the word vandalised as a lifecycle doesn't seem to me to fit the nuance of reality: not everything that is vandalised is out of use ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
