Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Warin]

On 30/07/19 02:55, Dave F via Tagging wrote:
I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is 
that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there, 
to be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render.


That is a problem with that particular render. It is not a tagging problem.

If that particular render failed to display some other feature .. would 
mappers then resort to tagging it some other way so it renders on that 
particular render???


It appears that in order to get mappers to use the correct tagging one 
particular render has to stop showing the 'obsolete' and 'depreciated' tags.

Similarly for incorrect mapping of relations with shared ways etc etc.


Mean while I am using tags that simply don't render on that particular 
render .. because they are the absolutely correct tags to use for those 
features.

I think too many are 'tagging for one renderer'.



Davef

On 29/07/2019 07:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
(namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.

The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
page suggests it is deprecated.

Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate
the deleted pages and change the status to something other than
obsolete/deprecated?

I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.

Joseph




___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Kevin Kenny]

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:20 PM Mateusz Konieczny
 wrote:
> I would say that use is deprecated for things like shop=* and in use
> for things like quarries, buildings, adits, bunkers etc

I wind up using a lifecycle prefix mostly when the former use is
recognizable, but there is another tag for what the thing has become.

Hence, combinations like 'highway=footway
abandoned:railway=narrow_gauge' (where aspects of the railroad can
still be seen) or 'landuse=brownfield disused:amenity=prison' (a
closed prison that the state is trying to redevelop for other uses),
or 'tourism=attraction historic=ruins ruins:building=hotel"
(historically important, burnt to the ground about eighty years ago,
the remaining stonework is architecturally interesting, and it's a
popular hiking destination)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Jul 2019, 18:34 by joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com:

> Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated.
>
> Are they "in use" then?
>
I would say that use is deprecated for things like shop=* and in use
for things like quarries, buildings, adits, bunkers etc

>
> According to https://taghistory.raifer.tech they've both increased in
> number by about 3500 features in the past 12 months. In comparison,
> disused:shop=* has been added about 3000 times in the same time
> period.
>
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org//search?q=disused%3A 


Not sure about growth, but usage for disused:railway and disused:amenity
is higher than of disused=shop.

There is also disused:highway, disused:aeroway, disused:landuse with a decent 
use.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Dave F via Tagging]

I believe the main reason isn't (& probably shouldn't) deprecated is 
that it allows entities which are unused but still physically there, to 
be rendered. disused:*=* aren't rendered on the 'standard' render.


Davef

On 29/07/2019 07:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
(namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.

The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
page suggests it is deprecated.

Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate
the deleted pages and change the status to something other than
obsolete/deprecated?

I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.

Joseph

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Ok, it's clear that these tags are not deprecated.

Are they "in use" then?

According to https://taghistory.raifer.tech they've both increased in
number by about 3500 features in the past 12 months. In comparison,
disused:shop=* has been added about 3000 times in the same time
period.

On 7/29/19, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
> Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 14:43 Uhr schrieb Andy Townsend >:
>
>> On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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).
>>
>> Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...
>>
>
>
> it is not just one renderer, OSM-Carto is often seen as standard
> implementation and a lot of people are taking it as template when they
> develop their own style. Generally the vast majority of data consumers does
> neither look at disused / abandoned=yes qualifiers, nor at them as
> prefixes. This applies to routing engines, rendering rules and all other
> kind of data consumers. Maybe there is someone looking at these "details",
> but most don't.
>
>
> As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means for
>> e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock was
>> extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one that
>> wanted to show holes in the ground would still show them.
>>
>
>
> that's a problem of tagging then. "landuse" is not suitable to represent a
> business. You need an additional tag for this. It might work as a shortcut
> in simple cases, but it is not generally working and is not in analogy to
> how we map factories or other industrial landuses for example.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:54, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

Is there a case where making it visible would actually be useful?
>

Yes, I would argue that disused physical objects should be rendered.  A
disused:building=house
is still a house.  An abandoned:building=house is still a house.  Even
ruins:building=house may
still be visible.  Disused non-physical objects should not be rendered: a
disused:amenity=pub
is no longer a pub.  Except there are grey areas, such as disused sports
pitches which are
maintained to some degree (weeds cut down occasionally) but no longer
used.  They could
be re-activated for their original purpose.  Abandoned railway lines pose
yet other problems.

For quarries or buildings disused/abandoned status is a property and is not
> changing
> feature so it makes sense to use disused=yes and abandoned=yes.
>

Which we do only because (currently, on standard carto)
disused:building=yes doesn't render.

In case of shops it is fundamentally different - disused shop is no longer
> a shop.
> If someone really wants to tag it (may to protect against accidental
> remapping
> then disused:shop=* is preferable (and it makes no sense to render it in
> most cases)
>

Depends.  It might be preferable to use shop=vacant is there is a strong
probability (such
as zoning restrictions) which mean that it won't be converted into a
domestic residence.

Is there some trace of the pub (maybe sign?) or danger of incorrect
> remapping?
>
Then it makes sense to keep it.
>

In one case I've mapped, yes.  It's a listed building with a distinctive
old pub sign which
cannot be removed (because it's a listed building).  It closed a couple of
years ago and
as far as I can tell is now a domestic residence.  A mapper passing by
would assume it
is still a pub.  https://goo.gl/maps/nf3S2MfjjV12tqAaA

Though in cases where no trace is left I would delete it (yes, OSM doesn't
> map history).
>

Again, near me there are several pubs that have closed but there is a
prospect they will
re-open under new ownership.  One recently had a bad fire 6 or 7 months ago
but has
just re-opened.

And then there are churches and chapels which have closed but not, as yet,
been repurposed.
So building=chapel + disused:amenity=place_of_worship.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 13:43, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:
>
>
> 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).
>
> Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...
>

There are other renderers to worry about, certainly.  But...

1) Not all of us have the luxury of running our own renderer which we can
customize to
match our own requirements.

2) When I look at what other renderers do in comparison to standard carto,
I find them lacking
in various different ways.  I don't think standard carto is perfect, but I
find the others a lot
worse.  Especially the commercial ones that boast how much better they are
than standard
carto, which generally put cosmetics (drop-shadowed buildings) ahead of
presenting useful
information (house names/numbers).

As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means for
> e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock was
> extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one that
> wanted to show holes in the ground would still show them.
>

Another map might even show the two situations differently, in some way.
So that people who
wanted only to look for active quarries could find them whilst others who
wanted to be warned
of dangerous holes in the ground in an area they intended to ramble would
be happy.

A building that isn't used for anything is still in actuality a building
> (until it falls or is knocked down), so I probably wouldn't use that tag
> personally, although there is mid-level usage in e.g. the UK:
> https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/L9H .
>

This is where I think standard carto gets it wrong.  A disused:building=yes
ought to be rendered
as a building but a disused:amenity=pub should not be rendered as a pub.
Instead a disused:
or abandoned: prefix renders everything it is applied to invisibly. Such
things are fixable in theory,
but in practice they aren't.  The result is that mappers do what mappers
do...

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

To be more exact someone decided to delete content and document prefix on the 
same page
instead of creating new one.

See 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:disused:=878757=862845


29 Jul 2019, 08:45 by o...@westnordost.de:

> Sounds to me that those pages were incorrectly deleted.
>

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Mateusz Konieczny]

29 Jul 2019, 14:05 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> 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).
>
Is there a case where making it visible would actually be useful?

For quarries or buildings disused/abandoned status is a property and is not 
changing
feature so it makes sense to use disused=yes and abandoned=yes.

Disuses building is still a building, only once it starts turning into ruin it
gets more questionable.

In case of shops it is fundamentally different - disused shop is no longer a 
shop.
If someone really wants to tag it (may to protect against accidental remapping
then disused:shop=* is preferable (and it makes no sense to render it in most 
cases)

> 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.
>
Is there some trace of the pub (maybe sign?) or danger of incorrect remapping?
Then it makes sense to keep it.

Though in cases where no trace is left I would delete it (yes, OSM doesn't map 
history).

> 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.
>
I would argue that disused=yes is preferable tagging for such feature and that 
it
is desirable for renderers and editors to encourage it.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Andy Townsend]

On 29/07/2019 13:05, Paul Allen wrote:


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).


Please let's just stop worrying about just that one renderer...


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.


It's perfectly possible for renderers to make sense of namespaced tags 
(and even, with a bit more difficulty, tags such as "landuse=quarry; 
disused=yes") and do whatever they want with them (obligatory example 
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1496 
and 
https://map.atownsend.org.uk/maps/map/map.html#zoom=20=53.9994944=-1.136121 
).


As already mentioned the tricky bit is working out what "disused" means 
for e.g. a quarry.  A map that wanted to show actual places where rock 
was extracted wouldn't show an inactive hole in the ground, whereas one 
that wanted to show holes in the ground would still show 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.


A building that isn't used for anything is still in actuality a building 
(until it falls or is knocked down), so I probably wouldn't use that tag 
personally, although there is mid-level usage in e.g. the UK: 
https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/L9H .


Best Regards,

Andy


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Yes, buildings are a good example of a feature that can be disused or
even abandoned, but remain a building=house or building=barn.

I've recreated the pages. Please check them and make or suggest any
improvements needed:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:disused=yes

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:abandoned=yes

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:07 PM Paul Allen  wrote:
>
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg  
> 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

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Joseph Eisenberg]

>> By the way, it seems the wiki does not show "statuses" correctly for 
>> historic page revisions: it shows a status (the current one?) where there is 
>> none set in the template, and it shows statuses that haven't been in 
>> existence when the revision was published.
>
>

This might be related to the new wikibase system?

Now missing things like status are pulled form the wikidata, and it
may not work properly for the page history?

I don't quite understand how it all works

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Paul Allen]

On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 at 07:24, Joseph Eisenberg 
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

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

Am Mo., 29. Juli 2019 um 09:26 Uhr schrieb Frederik Ramm <
frede...@remote.org>:

>
> Frankly, I am worried about the obsession with tag "statuses". I
> couldn't care less whether "abandoned=yes" was obsolete, deprecated, in
> use, or even voted on; "negating tags" like this is are dangerous and
> problematic and the wiki should educate people about this, full stop.
>


yes, generally yes, although there may be exceptions. E.g. landuse=quarry.
An abandoned or disused quarry may still be seen as a quarry by the people
living there. In this case, abandoned=yes doesn't negate the tags, it is a
qualifier about activity.




> If we explain to people why negating tags are problematic then they will
> understand and not use them; this is far better than telling them "uh-oh
> you've used a tag that is classified as a type-X tag under section Y of
> the tag classification regulations, don't do it!"
>
>

+1

By the way, it seems the wiki does not show "statuses" correctly for
historic page revisions: it shows a status (the current one?) where there
is none set in the template, and it shows statuses that haven't been in
existence when the revision was published.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 29.07.19 08:23, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
> incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
> deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
> (namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.
> 
> The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
> though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
> page suggests it is deprecated.

Frankly, I am worried about the obsession with tag "statuses". I
couldn't care less whether "abandoned=yes" was obsolete, deprecated, in
use, or even voted on; "negating tags" like this is are dangerous and
problematic and the wiki should educate people about this, full stop.

If we explain to people why negating tags are problematic then they will
understand and not use them; this is far better than telling them "uh-oh
you've used a tag that is classified as a type-X tag under section Y of
the tag classification regulations, don't do it!"

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Are disused=yes and abandoned=yes deprecated by disused:key=value & abandoned:key=value?

[Tobias Zwick]

Sounds to me that those pages were incorrectly deleted. Only because someone 
can tag the abandonedness of a single tag of a feature, doesn't mean that the 
tag that applies to the whole feature is deprecated.

Actually, sine best practice is to map each feature as an own element (unless 
maybe both features encompass the whole element, i.e. a building), the plain 
non-namespace tag would probably be used in the vast majority of cases.

Even in cases where two or more features encompass the whole object, I can't 
really think of a use case where the namespacing made sense: For example a 
disused hotel in a stately building may be mapped on one element, but then, 
wouldn't the whole building not also be diused?

Tobias 

On July 29, 2019 8:23:42 AM GMT+02:00, Joseph Eisenberg 
 wrote:
>I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently
>incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably
>deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:*
>(namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times.
>
>The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even
>though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused:
>page suggests it is deprecated.
>
>Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate
>the deleted pages and change the status to something other than
>obsolete/deprecated?
>
>I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus
>disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry.
>
>Joseph
>
>___
>Tagging mailing list
>Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging