[Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Daniel Koć]

When deciding about rendering change of waterway=derelict_canal on
osm-carto we are not sure what to do, because meaning of the tag is not
clear for us:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1003

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal

What would help us is to know whether it's filled with water, is
permanently dry or have some intermittent/seasonal pattern.

What do you think is the meaning of this tag and how could this
definition be improved?


-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]


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

[Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Mateusz Konieczny]

To people using this tag: please, update and clarify documentation of
this tag on OSM wiki. For example it is even unclear whatever it should
be expected that it can be applied to canals no longer filled with
water.

"used for transportation, waterpower, or irrigation" so filled by water
seems intended as implied - but canal that is drained and converted
into cycleway also fits "transportation".

On the other hand name (at least for me) implies canal where earthwork
is present but is no longer filled with water.

See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal
and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1003

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Daniel Koć  wrote:
> When deciding about rendering change of waterway=derelict_canal on
> osm-carto we are not sure what to do, because meaning of the tag is not
> clear for us:
>
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1003
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal
>
> What would help us is to know whether it's filled with water, is
> permanently dry or have some intermittent/seasonal pattern.
>
> What do you think is the meaning of this tag and how could this
> definition be improved?

I think that it could be improved by deprecating it.

Use more modern lifecycle tagging.

disused:waterway=canal - could be put back into service,
presumably still holds water.

abandoned:waterway=canal - likely to have siltation,
be intermittent, or be drained - this one may need
additional tags to disambiguate whether it actually
contains water.

demolished:waterway=canal - filled in, but still signs
on the ground

I have a historically significant demolished canal locally;
the route is often overlaid by roads,
footpaths or cycleways and sometimes submerged.
Ruined locks, aqueducts, towpaths are still usually
visible on the ground. The individual sections are tagged
with one of the above if appropriate (some of the
places where the abandoned canal is overlaid with
highways simply are tagged as highways). There's
a route=canal relation that groups the entire set of ways.

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Apr 2018, at 19:53, Kevin Kenny  wrote:
> 
> I think that it could be improved by deprecating it.
> 
> Use more modern lifecycle tagging.


+1

Cheers,
Martin 

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Christoph Hormann]

It is not the first time this subject (here literally this subject) has 
been discussed:

https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2015-August/thread.html#26101

By the way the wiki page

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal

is a great demonstration of how dysfunctional the tag documentation on 
the wiki has become - in this case with the attempt to encourage 
improvement of the tag documentation being scuttled by silently 
removing the verifiability template.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 09.04.2018 o 20:38, Christoph Hormann pisze:

> By the way the wiki page
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal
>
> is a great demonstration of how dysfunctional the tag documentation on 
> the wiki has become - in this case with the attempt to encourage 
> improvement of the tag documentation being scuttled by silently 
> removing the verifiability template.

I don't know if this is wider problem with documentation, but certainly
it's the wider problem with this user. He tries to change things too
eagerly and avoids discussion, even if he knows that it's important. For
example he also made a big change with palace tagging lately, which I
reverted:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/57705945

If he will avoid discussions here, I'd like to cool him down a bit with
a temporary ban. Which is sad for me, because he made a lot of great
cleaning and updating with osm-carto legend on wiki.

-- 
"My method is uncertain/ It's a mess but it's working" [F. Apple]



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

>> 
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal


btw, would you agree it is good to remove the link to the general waterways 
page from specific tag pages / see also section?

to me the reference would seem useful
* [[waterways]]: general waterway mapping information___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:34:17 +0200
Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

> * [[waterways]]: general waterway mapping information

I restored this reference and added some info about lifecycle tagging
(copy pasted from mailing list, hopefully it is OK).

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[François Lacombe]

Hi Mateusz,

It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes.

I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two different
information in one value.


Just my 2 cts.

François

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux 

2015-08-23 17:32 GMT+02:00 Mateusz Konieczny :

> To people using this tag: please, update and clarify documentation of
> this tag on OSM wiki. For example it is even unclear whatever it should
> be expected that it can be applied to canals no longer filled with
> water.
>
> "used for transportation, waterpower, or irrigation" so filled by water
> seems intended as implied - but canal that is drained and converted
> into cycleway also fits "transportation".
>
> On the other hand name (at least for me) implies canal where earthwork
> is present but is no longer filled with water.
>
> See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:waterway%3Dderelict_canal
> and https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1003
>
> ___
> 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] waterway=derelict_canal

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 19:56 +0200, François Lacombe wrote:
> Hi Mateusz,
> 
> 
> It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes.
> 
> 
> I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two
> different information in one value.

I agree. This was an absolutely awful, boneheaded choice for a tag, when
we already had a much better way to tag the same thing.

I have no issue with automatically replacing the existing
waterway=derelict_canal with waterway=canal and disused=yes. There's
just no reason to keep the former tag.



-- 
Shawn K. Quinn 


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Chris Hill]

On 24/08/15 18:56, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi Mateusz,

It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes.

I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two 
different information in one value.


I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided.

Suppose someone uses foo=bar + disused=yes. Someone else searches for 
foo=bar, he will find the objects with and without disused=yes. If he 
doesn't notice he will treat the disused the same as the active objects. 
It means every time anyone searches for or selects anything he must also 
select not(disused=yes). Using a different style of tag (e.g. 
disused:foo=bar) avoids this problem as foo=bar is quite different from 
disused:foo=bar.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 23/08/2015 16:32, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:

To people using this tag: please, update and clarify documentation of
this tag on OSM wiki. For example it is even unclear whatever it should
be expected that it can be applied to canals no longer filled with
water.

"used for transportation, waterpower, or irrigation" so filled by water
seems intended as implied - but canal that is drained and converted
into cycleway also fits "transportation".


I think that that part of the wiki's fairly clear - you've selectively 
quoted the second half of a sentence there, the part that means 
"canal".  The tricky bit is what "derelict" means...



On the other hand name (at least for me) implies canal where earthwork
is present but is no longer filled with water.


Let's assume to start with that we're talking about things that are 
still a feature of the landscape (and leave the "what if they're not" 
discussion to the various "railway" threads).  I've tended to use it on 
those bits of canal that can't be used for their former purpose, so 
everything from:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/48784326

(to which I added "description=Water in places, but some trees growing 
in it - disused") through to:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/103431234

("note=Here the footpath seems to be along the old elevated canal bed")

To my mind a waterway=derelict_canal is not just a waterway=canal that 
happens to be disused - it's one where the infrastructure has 
deteriorated significantly.  So for example, this section of Cromford Canal:


http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/39551657

is largely disused as a canal (although the charity that's restoring it 
does run trips up and down the top end), but it still has water in it, 
and still looks to the casual observer like a canal, so I mapped it as such.


FWIW I agree completely with Chris about the problems with "foo=bar + 
disused=yes".  It's a form of tagging that's really best avoided. As an 
aside, when I tried to represent "dead pubs" on a map I ended up doing this:


https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L368

That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not disused=yes" 
into every cartocss rule!


Cheers,

Andy


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 24.08.2015 22:49, Chris Hill wrote:
> I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided.
> 
> Suppose someone uses foo=bar + disused=yes. Someone else searches for
> foo=bar, he will find the objects with and without disused=yes.

That's fine, because disused objects are still there, so they need to remain
retrievable. A disused church may still retain its frescos, a disused adit
may still be visited by chiropterologists, a disused track may still be
usable for tractors and hikers, and a disused canal may be used by bathers
or fishermen, or at least it is still a barrier.

disused=yes is an important tag, used on 46K objects. When someone is
searching for a boat passage, he needs to filter out all disused=yes just as
he does with access=no, boat=no, widthhttp://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:33:04 +0200
Friedrich Volkmann  wrote:

> On 24.08.2015 22:49, Chris Hill wrote:
> > I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided.
> > 
> > Suppose someone uses foo=bar + disused=yes. Someone else searches
> > for foo=bar, he will find the objects with and without disused=yes.
>
> That's fine, because disused objects are still there, so they need to
> remain retrievable. A disused church may still retain its frescos, a
> disused adit may still be visited by chiropterologists, a disused
> track may still be usable for tractors and hikers, and a disused
> canal may be used by bathers or fishermen, or at least it is still a
> barrier.

It depends on object. Disused building is still building and
disused=yes is OK in that situation.

Disused tracks that is usable is still track (and disused=yes is OK). 
Once track disappears due to disuse it should be simply deleted.

Tagging closed shop/pub with disused=yes is a poor
idea. Closed shop is no longer place where one may buy things - at most
there are some traces and possibility of reopening what in some cases
may be mapped as disued:shop=*.

> When someone is searching for a boat passage, he needs to filter out
> (...) start_date in the future

This one should never happen.

Any objects like that are tagging errors. Objects like that should be
probably tagged as in construction (with end_date in future) or proposed
in case of nearly certain construction (with end_date in future) or not
mapped in OSM (is there some other state beyond in
construction/proposed that I missed?).


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Paul Norman]

On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not 
disused=yes" into every cartocss rule! 


Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as we 
will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says what 
something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but used to 
be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of disused=yes, 
abandoned=yes, or similar tags.


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Warin]

On 26/08/2015 8:20 AM, Paul Norman wrote:

On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not 
disused=yes" into every cartocss rule! 


Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as we 
will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says what 
something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but used 
to be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of disused=yes, 
abandoned=yes, or similar tags.


Your choice to use what you want.
The mappers chose to use tags that reflect what is, was or will be. As 
they want.


No one is right or wrong here.
It is a choice of what is best on a case by case basis.
Everyone wants some consistency - leading to tags that everyone 
understands even if they chose not to use them.


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Mateusz Konieczny]

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:20:10 -0700
Paul Norman  wrote:

> On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not 
> > disused=yes" into every cartocss rule! 
> 
> Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as
> we will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says
> what something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but
> used to be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of
> disused=yes, abandoned=yes, or similar tags.

Yes, [amenity=hotel, involuntary=yes] is a poor way to tag prison in
the same yes as using [shop=convenience; disused=yes] is a poor way to
tag something where only remains of shop are present and it is
impossible to buy anything.

This type of trolltags is really irritating - and in general it is a
tagging for renderer to force data consumers to process objects that are
no longer existing.

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Richard]

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 09:49:07PM +0100, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 24/08/15 18:56, François Lacombe wrote:
> >Hi Mateusz,
> >
> >It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes.
> >
> >I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two
> >different information in one value.
> 
> I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided.

indeed, in most cases the key prefix "disused:" causes less trouble

  http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix


Richard

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Richard]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:23:10PM +1000, Warin wrote:
> On 26/08/2015 8:20 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
> >On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> >>That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not disused=yes"
> >>into every cartocss rule!
> >
> >Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as we
> >will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says what
> >something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but used to
> >be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of disused=yes,
> >abandoned=yes, or similar tags.
> 
> Your choice to use what you want.
> The mappers chose to use tags that reflect what is, was or will be. As they
> want.

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts


Richard


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Dave F.]

On 24/08/2015 21:49, Chris Hill wrote:

On 24/08/15 18:56, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi Mateusz,

It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes.

I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two 
different information in one value.


I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided.

Suppose someone uses foo=bar + disused=yes. Someone else searches for 
foo=bar, he will find the objects with and without disused=yes. If he 
doesn't notice he will treat the disused the same as the active objects.


Sub tags such as disused=yes have always been the way to describe 
additional attributes of an entity. It's even the syntax used by XML: 
you collect all 'waterway=canal' items then manipulate that selection 
set. If programmers "don't notice" then, quite simply, they're not very 
good at they're job.


An example of where the non use of sub tags lead to confusion is tree 
coverage:


natural=wood v. landuse=forest to distinguish between trees that are 
'managed' has led to misuse as can be seen in their wiki pages:


All tree coverage should be a single primary tag & any attributes 
described in sub tags

managed=yes.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andrew Errington]

On 26/08/2015, Richard  wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 03:23:10PM +1000, Warin wrote:
>> On 26/08/2015 8:20 AM, Paul Norman wrote:
>> >On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
>> >>That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not disused=yes"
>> >>into every cartocss rule!
>> >
>> >Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as we
>> >will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says what
>> >something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but used to
>> >be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of disused=yes,
>> >abandoned=yes, or similar tags.
>>
>> Your choice to use what you want.
>> The mappers chose to use tags that reflect what is, was or will be. As
>> they
>> want.
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts

Curiously, the disadvantages of "disused=yes" seem rather contrived,
and not really likely, whereas the disadvantages of "disused:*=*" seem
quite genuine.  Not to mention that "disused=yes" is simpler, and very
obvious to a human reader.

Andrew

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Ruben Maes]

Wednesday 26 August 2015 12:51:22, Dave F.:
> Sub tags such as disused=yes have always been the way to describe 
> additional attributes of an entity. It's even the syntax used by XML: 
> you collect all 'waterway=canal' items then manipulate that selection 
> set. If programmers "don't notice" then, quite simply, they're not very 
> good at they're job.

The point is that a disused shop is no longer a shop:
A shop is a place you can go to to buy stuff or services. If the shop has 
closed, it's effectively not a shop any more and no longer of interest to most 
data users.

-- 
The field "from" of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the 
back of an envelope. That's why this message is OpenPGP signed.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/08/2015 12:51, Dave F. wrote:


Sub tags such as disused=yes have always been the way to describe 
additional attributes of an entity. It's even the syntax used by XML: 
you collect all 'waterway=canal' items then manipulate that selection 
set. If programmers "don't notice" then, quite simply, they're not 
very good at they're job.


I look forward to your modifications to the OSM Carto (and other) 
stylesheets to add handling for "disused=yes" throughout then. :)


Your use of "always" above simply isn't borne out by the facts.  I 
personally have "always" tried to tag "former" things in a way that's 
appropriate to their current status, and that _might_ be disused=yes (as 
discussed in the thread above) but it might also be "disused:foo=bar", 
or it might be delete the tag entirely, while trying to keep some link 
to history (see http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/364520111/history for 
an example).


Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Ruben Maes]

Wednesday 26 August 2015 21:04:47, Andrew Errington:
> Curiously, the disadvantages of "disused=yes" seem rather contrived,
> and not really likely, whereas the disadvantages of "disused:*=*" seem
> quite genuine.  Not to mention that "disused=yes" is simpler, and very
> obvious to a human reader.

You're kidding, right?

To me it's clear that disused:*=* is better for things that are no longer what 
they were, e.g. disused:shop=*

If however you want to map a canal where the water is still present, I'm fine 
with waterway=canal, disused=yes since the feature is still a canal, even 
though it's no longer used.

-- 
The field "from" of an email is about as reliable as the address written on the 
back of an envelope. That's why this message is OpenPGP signed.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Dave F.]

On 25/08/2015 23:20, Paul Norman wrote:

On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not 
disused=yes" into every cartocss rule! 


Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as we 
will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says what 
something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but used 
to be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of disused=yes, 
abandoned=yes, or similar tags.


Sub tags give *extra* data about an entity.

A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub. It's not a 
park bench or a multi-storey car park. It's just closed. This should be 
described in sub tags.


Similarly a canal that's derelict hasn't morphed into an airplane 
runway. Use sub tags to describe its condition.


Expecting mappers to change tagging because renderers are unwilling to 
add a few lines of code is the tail wagging the dog & we don't want to 
encourage that.


Dave F.





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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 26/08/2015 13:44, Dave F. wrote:

On 25/08/2015 23:20, Paul Norman wrote:

On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not 
disused=yes" into every cartocss rule! 


Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as 
we will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says 
what something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but 
used to be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of 
disused=yes, abandoned=yes, or similar tags.


Sub tags give *extra* data about an entity.

A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub.


Not by someone who wants a beer, it can't!



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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Dave F.]

On 26/08/2015 13:34, Andy Townsend wrote:

On 26/08/2015 12:51, Dave F. wrote:


Sub tags such as disused=yes have always been the way to describe 
additional attributes of an entity. It's even the syntax used by XML: 
you collect all 'waterway=canal' items then manipulate that selection 
set. If programmers "don't notice" then, quite simply, they're not 
very good at they're job.


I look forward to your modifications to the OSM Carto (and other) 
stylesheets to add handling for "disused=yes" throughout then. :)


Please see my other reply in this thread.



Your use of "always" above simply isn't borne out by the facts.


Apologies, I overstated my point. Since 2009?

I personally have "always" tried to tag "former" things in a way 
that's appropriate to their current status, and that _might_ be 
disused=yes (as discussed in the thread above) but it might also be 
"disused:foo=bar", or it might be delete the tag entirely, while 
trying to keep some link to history (see 
http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/364520111/history for an example).


To repeat my other reply a bit a closed pub is still often recognisable 
as a pub even if you can't buy a beer there. With the current UK market 
it could stay that way for months before either reopening or converted 
to 'affordable' housing, in which case, change the tags.


"disused:foo=bar" how far do you go with that format? If sub tags are 
not to be used do we put all data to the primary? It could get very long.


btw shouldn't it be foo=disused:bar?

Ta
Dave F.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Chris Hill]

On 26/08/15 13:44, Dave F. wrote:


A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub. It's not a 
park bench or a multi-storey car park. It's just closed. This should 
be described in sub tags.


No, a pub that is closed is simply not open for business until it 
reopens the next day. A pub that is disused is no longer a pub. It may 
become a pub again in the future but for now it is not a pub. The 
services that a pub provides are no longer available at that place. As a 
pub it has ceased to be. In short: it is an ex-pub.


To leave a tag that describes it as a pub (when it is not) then add 
another tag that says it is not a pub is plain daft. Changing it's 
tagging to show it is no longer a pub, such as disused:amenity=pub is 
distinctly showing that it is no longer a pub even though it might 
superficially look like one.


Now I need a beer.

--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Richard Welty]

On 8/26/15 8:55 AM, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 26/08/2015 13:44, Dave F. wrote:
>> On 25/08/2015 23:20, Paul Norman wrote:
>>> On 8/24/2015 3:35 PM, Andy Townsend wrote:
 That's not so bad in lua, but imagine writing "... and not
 disused=yes" into every cartocss rule! 
>>>
>>> Fortunately, we will not have to do that in OpenStreetMap Carto, as
>>> we will not be supporting the style of tagging where one tag says
>>> what something is, then another tag saying it's not really that, but
>>> used to be, or will be. We do not want to encourage the use of
>>> disused=yes, abandoned=yes, or similar tags.
>>
>> Sub tags give *extra* data about an entity.
>>
>> A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub.
>
> Not by someone who wants a beer, it can't!
we have a disused namespace for this sort of thing. it relieves the carto
developers of having to check disused=yes; the data is in the db but
it doesn't mess with the default rendering.

if people want to render disused pubs, the data is there and they can
use it. of course if the pub is torn down then it should move to OHM
if it's of genuine historic significance.

richard

-- 
rwe...@averillpark.net
 Averill Park Networking - GIS & IT Consulting
 OpenStreetMap - PostgreSQL - Linux
 Java - Web Applications - Search




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Chris Hill  wrote:

> To leave a tag that describes it as a pub (when it is not) then add
> another tag that says it is not a pub is plain daft.
>

+1
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 26.08.2015 15:16, Chris Hill wrote:
> No, a pub that is closed is simply not open for business until it reopens
> the next day. A pub that is disused is no longer a pub.

What about a pub that is closed for 2 months? What's the limit? Anyway, we
have two points of view:

1) It's still a pub. In that case, use the amenity=pub key with adequate
attributes.

2) It's no more a pub. In that case, just delete the amenity=pub tag.
There's no point in a disused:foo=bar namespace. That's either historical
mapping or hiding from the renderer, both of which are wrong in OSM.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Andy Townsend]

On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
There's no point in a disused:foo=bar namespace. That's either 
historical mapping or hiding from the renderer, both of which are 
wrong in OSM. 


Er, no.  A disused:amenity=pub is something that still exists in its own 
right; it's a building that was a pub, is still a building, is probably 
still usable as a navigational aid and gets rendered on maps that want 
to show that sort of thing:


http://i.imgur.com/lxFc6ds.png

... it just doesn't sell beer.

Cheers,

Andy (SomeoneElse)

PS: That one's since re-opened (hurray!)


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Friedrich Volkmann]

On 27.08.2015 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:
> On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
>> There's no point in a disused:foo=bar namespace. That's either historical
>> mapping or hiding from the renderer, both of which are wrong in OSM. 
> 
> Er, no.  A disused:amenity=pub is something that still exists in its own
> right; it's a building that was a pub, is still a building, is probably
> still usable as a navigational aid

That's why the building=* tag stays in place, and you may leave the name
there as well (particularly when it serves as a navigational aid), just drop
the amenity=pub tag.

With disused:amenity=pub you may get in trouble. What if it was a pub at one
time, a nightclub at another time and a restaurant at yet another time?
Maybe it still looks like a nightclub, although it was used as a pub lately.

-- 
Friedrich K. Volkmann   http://www.volki.at/
Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Philip Barnes]

On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 14:16 +0100, Chris Hill wrote:
> On 26/08/15 13:44, Dave F. wrote:
> > 
> > A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub. It's not
> > a 
> > park bench or a multi-storey car park. It's just closed. This
> > should 
> > be described in sub tags.
> > 
> No, a pub that is closed is simply not open for business until it 
> reopens the next day. A pub that is disused is no longer a pub. It
> may 
> become a pub again in the future but for now it is not a pub. The 
> services that a pub provides are no longer available at that place.
> As a 
> pub it has ceased to be. In short: it is an ex-pub.
> 
> To leave a tag that describes it as a pub (when it is not) then add 
> another tag that says it is not a pub is plain daft. Changing it's 
> tagging to show it is no longer a pub, such as disused:amenity=pub is
> distinctly showing that it is no longer a pub even though it might 
> superficially look like one.
> 
> Now I need a beer.
> 
A disused pub, providing it still looks like a pub, is still a useful
navigational feature. Pubs have always been the normal way of giving
directions.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PrKK4Y3JBpdF3jg6fnLM1g/photo

Turn right by The White Horse, carry on passed The Old Post Office and
Castle, turn left by the White Lion then left again by The Hawkstone.

What could be simpler?

Phil (trigpoint)


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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Georg Feddern]

Am 27.08.2015 um 18:49 schrieb Philip Barnes:

A disused pub, providing it still looks like a pub, is still a useful
navigational feature. Pubs have always been the normal way of giving
directions.
http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/PrKK4Y3JBpdF3jg6fnLM1g/photo

Turn right by The White Horse, carry on passed The Old Post Office and
Castle, turn left by the White Lion then left again by The Hawkstone.

What could be simpler?


Well - it is simple.
But what you refer to is the simple _name_  - and that name may be still 
there in OSM if it's still sitting on the wall or sign.

In opposite to the amenity ...

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

[Richard]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 04:00:15PM +0200, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:
> On 27.08.2015 13:51, Andy Townsend wrote:
> > On 27/08/2015 12:15, Friedrich Volkmann wrote:

> With disused:amenity=pub you may get in trouble. What if it was a pub at one
> time, a nightclub at another time and a restaurant at yet another time?
> Maybe it still looks like a nightclub, although it was used as a pub lately.
> 

you could use the date namespace then.

Richard

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