Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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).

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

>> >> 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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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 >

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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 > >

[Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net 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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 15:20:10 -0700 Paul Norman penor...@mac.com 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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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.

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On 26/08/2015, Richard ricoz@gmail.com 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!

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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,

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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,

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:33:04 +0200 Friedrich Volkmann b...@volki.at 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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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,

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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,

[Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

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