> Am 09.01.2017 um 21:23 schrieb ael <law_ence....@ntlworld.com>: > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 02:00:58PM +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote:
>> Please do not use "disused=yes" as it is considered troll-tagging, first >> saying it is simething, and in the next line negating it. +1 That’s what the life cycle prefix is intended for. > I don't think that is a natural interpretation. It is perfectly clear in > the case of a disused quarry. It is still a quarry. But it is no longer > in use. In a few cases it may have a new purpose, but it is still a > quarry in any normal sense. No, if there there no more mining, exploitation or landfill activities, the former quarry is a geological outcrop at best. > > I think I tried disused:landuse=quarry, but as I recall it was then not > rendered on the standard map. I am all against tagging for the renderer > in principle, but when such major features are not shown, it is > ridiculous and a hazard. Theses particular quarries have sheer faces > some of which are not fenced off. You might use man_made=embankment for them. Don’t use natural=cliff, as these features are not of natural origin. > >> The landuse tag should describe the current use, not the former. > > In the cases that I was examining, the current use is "disused_quarry“. I would opt for describing the subsequent use like recreation, natural, leisure etc. geow _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
