I've updated the pages for disused=yes and abandoned=yes to address concerns lots of mappers were having about these tags' backwards compatibility and basic semantic soundness. This update is itself backwards-compatible with the old voted-upon docs, but allows migration to a scheme that's friendlier for software.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned Your thoughts? Really, I'm just codifying something similar to what people have already been doing locally, and as described on IRC and in the wiki, as a suggestion. There are some nuggets about naming and when a building stops being a building in there too. Semantically, logically, it's pretty fundamental that all of the individual statements you make by tagging an object should be true about it right now to the best knowledge available. This means they should not contradict each other. Otherwise, software is going to become upset: volunteer developers don't have the time to add exception cases for every new tag that comes along in a free-form tagging system. The old pattern for these tags violated this; what I've suggested doesn't. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Andrew%20Chadwick/diary/14047 too) -- Andrew Chadwick _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging