On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus > disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry. > It applies to more than just quarries. The problem is that the namespaced version, when applied to physical objects, renders them invisible (on standard carto). It's fine with usages. I've mapped pubs that have recently closed and it is uncertain if they will re-open as a pub, re-open as something else, be turned into a residence or the building itself become disused. I've been tagging them as disused:amenity=pub Some people with what I view as an over-strict interpretation of rules may say that's mapping the history of the thing and OSM doesn't map history, but I ignore them. However, there are several buildings in my town that are clearly disused. Peeling paintwork, broken windows, no sign of activity for many years. If I use disused:building=yes they vanish from the map but they're observable in reality, which means the map doesn't show something that is physically present. Using disused=yes is a way around this. Call it tagging for the renderer if you want, but it's not lying for the renderer. So I'd argue these are not obsolete, should get their pages back, and both their pages and the namespaced equivalents should get a brief note saying in which situation the namespaced version may or may not be preferred. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
