I didn't notice any trend going on in terms of removing give ways, is that a thing?
Generally I think the lifecycle prefix tags disused: and abandoned: prefixes are useful where there is evidence of that thing still existing on the ground, but is in a state that renders it not fully operational. In the case of a give way sign, I can't see how that would really apply. If a car crashes into the sign, it might be damaged momentarily, but surely it won't be long before a new one is installed? As for a give way sign falling into disrepair such that you can still make it out, but it's in a state that it's not sufficient to be enforced, again does the council or the state transport agency really leave those in that state for long periods of time? I guess if they aren't fixed within a few weeks you could opt for abandoned:... But probably better to just notify the state transport agency/the local council to fix it. The razed: and was: prefixes are good to ensure people mapping from non-live sources like imagery aren't going to just re-add it. On Sat, 14 Feb 2026 at 16:50, Bob Cameron <[email protected]> wrote: > What's the thought here? Many a NSW give-way sign removal is happening or > happened. Is it best to re-prefix them abandoned:highway=give_way, or just > delete? Even the DCS overhead imagery is good enough in some places to see > the triangle shape shadow, but it is often quite old. > > I am about to create a POI set in my GPS navigator for voice notes to add > and remove them, so need to know. > > Cheers > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
