Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

Looking at the existing tagging, I think I will take a ride down the slippery slope you mention. For example: an "aed" is an emergency medical device people are mapping. Learning the locations of these could be important in an emergency: checking the mapping makes sense. So how about: lastcheck=

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

Relevant to this discussion, I just noticed in the wild: http://www.tappenbeck.net/osm/maps/deu/index.php?id=1029 Which has: aed:note im Schrank hinter dem Empfangstresen lastcheck 2012-10-02 medical aed http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/1944153202 See also http://www.aedlocator.org/ __

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > I have no strong opinion on the general idea but one thing sticks out: > "operational_status=operating". > Obviously, this should be the default assumption. If there's a toilet > mapped then I assume that it is working. > I have added a not

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, fly wrote: > Exactly, what you do describe won't work. Please use a prefix if > something is broken. Software which wants to display these kind of > broken objects can look for this prefix and all other simply ignore it. > > It would be really dangerous in a dry a

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

In my case, I would prefer a desert_oasis to a dessert_oasis. A desert, with one S, is an area that gets little rainfall. A dessert, with a double S, is a sweet food usually eaten at the end of a meal. On topic, items or services that are both scarce and essential to life should be checked pe

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:14 AM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > A telephone that is already tagged as functional would not normally be > re-tagged as functional just to say "yes, it still is". This means that the > "operational_status:date" tag is superfluous, since it will always be the > date of the cha

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frederik Ramm > wrote: > > This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she > walks > > the streets, update every object in the database with "yep, this is still > > there, I walked past

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On talk-fr somebody was wondering how to tag a building where a fire had been. So the building is still there, but it's not usable anymore until some major reconstruction takes place. Jo ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.ope

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

2013/7/2 Bryce Nesbitt > So how *should* we annotate an object, which we believe to be > a permanent part of the landscape, > but which needs some form of descriptive note? > I'd say this depends on the object. > Example: a restroom with a sign reading "Closed until July 2014 for repairs",

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > A telephone that is already tagged as functional would not normally be > re-tagged as functional just to say "yes, it still is". This means that the > "operational_status:date" tag is superfluous, since it will always be the > date of the chan

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

Hi, On 07/02/2013 10:07 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: I don't think the situation you describe arises at all. There is never any onus on any mapper to add extra redundant details - and it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise. [...] Yes, that's effectively what I was trying to say, just avoiding words

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she walks > the streets, update every object in the database with "yep, this is still > there, I walked past it right now". Because just as a toilet could fall into > disrepai

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:07 AM, fly wrote: > It works as long as the primary function is available though somehow > broken. So how *should* we annotate an object, which we believe to be a permanent part of the landscape, but which needs some form of descriptive note?

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

Am 29.06.2013 19:54, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, fly > wrote: > > Exactly, what you do describe won't work. Please use a prefix if > something is broken. Software which wants to display these kind of > broken objects can

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 5:07 AM, fly wrote: > Exactly, what you do describe won't work. Please use a prefix if > something is broken. Software which wants to display these kind of > broken objects can look for this prefix and all other simply ignore it. This tag is for the opposite use case. Th

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

Hi, On 06/29/13 07:37, Bryce Nesbitt wrote: This is a proposal to fill a hole in the life cycle concepts (that of facilities /intended/ to be operational): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status I have drawn from the HOT tagging, and from the experience mappi

Re: [Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

Am 29.06.2013 07:37, schrieb Bryce Nesbitt: > This is a proposal to fill a hole in the life cycle concepts (that of > facilities /intended/ to be operational): > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status > I have drawn from the HOT tagging, and from the experience

[Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

This is a proposal to fill a hole in the life cycle concepts (that of facilities *intended* to be operational): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Tag:operational_status I have drawn from the HOT tagging, and from the experience mapping drinking fountain status with wetap:status _