Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

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

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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.

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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.

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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. > > > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-03 Thread 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