Re: [Tagging] building=disused

17 Jan 2020, 13:19 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com: > Le 17.01.20 à 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : > I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme. >>> Is it actually popular? >>> >> >> The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is >>

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Le 17.01.20 à 02:49, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit : >>> I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme. >>> >> Is it actually popular? > > The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is > http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues > > According to taginfo, there

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

16 Jan 2020, 23:36 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 17/1/20 2:48 am, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny <>> >> matkoni...@tutanota.com>> > wrote: >> >>> >>> 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by >>> 61sundow...@gmail.com>>> : >>> If the 'standard

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

>> I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme. >> > Is it actually popular? The place to request changed to Openstreetmap-carto is http://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues According to taginfo, there are a total of 11,158 occurence of disused:man_made and

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 22:37, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > And that is a problem. A reduction in information caused by a render > failing to render information. > Not quite. As things stand, that information is being mapped. The problem is that some people, such as you, are calling

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 17/1/20 2:48 am, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny mailto:matkoni...@tutanota.com>> wrote: 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com : If the 'standard map' starts rendering 'disused=yes' the same way

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > 16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > > If the 'standard map' starts rendering 'disused=yes' the same way as > 'disused:*=*' (presently not rendered) then what? > > Then standard map style will be fixed to > remove this bug. >

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

16 Jan 2020, 14:43 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: >  I'm unsure why Carto ignores such a popular tagging scheme. > Is it actually popular? And to answer the question: (1) it duplicates (attempts to replace) an existing tagging scheme (2) for building tagging it is not an improvement in any way

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

16 Jan 2020, 02:22 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > On 16/1/20 12:08 pm, Paul Allen wrote: > >> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Joseph Eisenberg <>> >> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> > wrote: >> >>> I'm one of themaintainers of the Openstreetmap-carto style, but >>> I >>>

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

16 Jan 2020, 12:34 by tagging@openstreetmap.org: > Using "building=* values describe how the building looks" is recording > historical data. We don't do that in OSM > Using it to tag how it currently looks is perfectly fine. For example - church used nowadays as museum, clearly constructed as a

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

sent from a phone > On 16. Jan 2020, at 01:49, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > But disabled=yes should never have been described > as deprecated - it was always being used. I guess „disabled“ was discouraged for political reasons (diversity) as it isn’t an acceptable term (AFAIK, I am not

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:43, Dave F wrote: > > > On 16/01/2020 12:57, Paul Allen wrote: > > > >> So the wiki says now. It's not what it said in the past. But let's > say you're > >> correct. We both know that standard carto doesn't render physical > objects > >> with a disused prefix. I,

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 12:57, Paul Allen wrote: So the wiki says now. It's not what it said in the past. But let's say you're correct. We both know that standard carto doesn't render physical objects with a disused prefix. I, and others, believe that it is important to render physical objects

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 13:18, Dave F wrote: > > On 16/01/2020 12:01, Paul Allen wrote: > > > > A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better. > > But > > you already lost the battle with building=house, which is too firmly > > entrenched to change. > > Why would it need

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 12:01, marc marc wrote: you want me to believe that every time an object has gone, It's not gone. We're talking about buildings which are physically still existing. you make an enquiry to find out how it disappeared ? Err.. No.You don't have to know why a building isn't

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 12:01, Paul Allen wrote: A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better. But you already lost the battle with building=house, which is too firmly entrenched to change. Why would it need to change? If that's it's *current* usage tag it as house. If it

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 12:43, Dave F wrote: > > On 16/01/2020 01:08, Paul Allen wrote: > > That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree. > > Do they? > Until you chimed in, most did. > > > So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended. > > Does it? > The fact that we're

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 01:08, Paul Allen wrote: That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree. Do they? So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended. Does it? "Use the disused: lifecycle prefix on tags that relate to features that are in a reasonable state of repair but

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Joseph says tagging usage should dictate OSM-carto: the community should make tagging decisions based on what works best for mappers and what makes logical sense, without worrying what a particular renderer will do. But then ignores the more popular disused: prefix But this is not always

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 11:35, Dave F via Tagging wrote: > > This never really stands up. Storing the supposed type could only ever > work if there's a 'standard' style for each building type. > A lot of buildings have to be building=yes, for lack of anything better. But you already lost the

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Le 16.01.20 à 12:53, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : > On 16/01/2020 11:34, marc marc wrote: >> I'm also using was: because I don't care > > Well. Done. You. you want me to believe that every time an object has gone, you make an enquiry to find out how it disappeared ? I did this at first, before

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/01/2020 11:34, marc marc wrote: I'm also using was: because I don't care Well. Done. You. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

I'm also using was: because I don't care and often don't known if a poi is destroyed, dismantled, demolished, moved, the only thing I can see is that it's gone. f.e. a room whose store type has changed doesn't fit my description of disused: Le 16.01.20 à 12:16, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : >

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 14/01/2020 19:32, marc marc wrote: Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit : If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now used as a pub still remains a building=church. I fully agree with that. note that

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

You're using was: to represent the same meaning as disused:, so why not use the far more popular latter one? On 14/01/2020 19:02, Markus wrote: For example, building=commercial + disused=yes on the area and was:shop=supermarket + name=* on a node within.

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

The correct term is 'don't tag *incorrectly* to suit the render'. All tags are for the renderer, otherwise all the maps would be black lines & dots DaveF. On 14/01/2020 18:42, Kevin Kenny wrote: Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag for the renderer.'

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

The reason it's discouraged is it removes the building type. ie building=church. Even though it may not be used as a church currently it still looks like one. Renderers may still want to distinguish it as such as it's a prominent feature, useful for navigation. On 14/01/2020 17:59, Andy

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 01:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: My thinking is that both 'disused=yes' and 'disused:*=* tag the same > condition. As such they should be treated equally by renders. > And my thinking is that there is a difference between a disused building (it's still a

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 16/1/20 12:08 pm, Paul Allen wrote: On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Joseph Eisenberg mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>> wrote: I'm one of the maintainers of the Openstreetmap-carto style, but I think the community should make tagging decisions based on what works best for mappers

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: > I'm one of the maintainers of the Openstreetmap-carto style, but I > think the community should make tagging decisions based on what works > best for mappers and what makes logical sense, without worrying what a > particular renderer will

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

I'm one of the maintainers of the Openstreetmap-carto style, but I think the community should make tagging decisions based on what works best for mappers and what makes logical sense, without worrying what a particular renderer will do. In this case I believe the decision to "deprecate" the tag

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

TING Best, -- Peter Elderson Op wo 15 jan. 2020 om 22:54 schreef Paul Allen : > On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 21:17, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > > I would not consider disused=yes to be >> deprecated for physical objects like >> building, adits, quarries etc. >> > > The wiki for the disused prefix

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 21:17, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: I would not consider disused=yes to be > deprecated for physical objects like > building, adits, quarries etc. > The wiki for the disused prefix has been amended since the last time this came up, and a long way down the page, after several

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

15 Jan 2020, 21:58 by pla16...@gmail.com: > Currently, the best you can do is use the deprecated disused=yes for physical > objects to get the desired behaviour with standard carto.  There is no > guarantee > that other renderers will honour that.  There is no guarantee that standard > carto >

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 20:39, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > If the thing is still physically present then it is still of use from a > navigation point of view. > +1 > From an ease of rendering it would be useful to have a way of rendering > any disused:* object. > For physical objects,

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 15/1/20 7:27 pm, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: Am Mi., 15. Jan. 2020 um 08:03 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis mailto:marc.ge...@gmail.com>>: On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: > And that raises another point, how would you

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

14 Jan 2020, 18:59 by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > no easily-found documntation for this common use case? > BTW, thanks for reporting the issue. I was unaware that wiki pages for this specific values would be useful. I also created family of pages for

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

14 Jan 2020, 18:59 by a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: > JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell > me what to use instead. > > On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor > [[Tag:building=disused]] exist > It exists now. > and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout > how

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

14 Jan 2020, 19:42 by kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com: > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:22 PM Paul Allen wrote: > >> Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently. >> But the >> standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done. >> > > Whenever I raise a point like

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

14 Jan 2020, 20:02 by selfishseaho...@gmail.com: > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny <> kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> > wrote: > Actually, i never use disused: on businesses because it feels wrong; > It is OK for shops that are closed, but where their signage still remains. > either i remove

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

15 Jan 2020, 05:15 by 61sundow...@gmail.com: > If you tag 'disused=yes' ... how is that rendered? > It depends on what author of map style wanted. For example it is unlikely to be supported in OSM Carto, as this style is already rendering many different things and distinctions. > And that

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Am Mi., 15. Jan. 2020 um 08:03 Uhr schrieb Marc Gemis : > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical > objects??? > > I would say that depends on the purpose of the map. A map that wants > to show

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Le 15.01.20 à 05:15, Warin a écrit : > On 15/1/20 6:32 am, marc marc wrote: >> Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit : >>> If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the >>> building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now >>> used as a pub still remains a

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5:16 AM Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > And that raises another point, how would you render disused physical > objects??? > They should not be the same as a physical object that is 'in use', and some > think they should be rendered, but how is that rendering to be

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On 15/1/20 6:32 am, marc marc wrote: Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit : If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now used as a pub still remains a building=church. I fully agree with that. note that

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 20:21, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > I think that the point has just been reinforced that debates over > subtle ontologic questions, such as "is the building that the shop > occupies a shop, or not?" are the usual outcome of this sort of > discussion, My point was that the

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Le 14.01.20 à 19:34, Markus a écrit : > If i understand it correctly, building=* values describe how the > building looks, not how it is used. For example, a church that is now > used as a pub still remains a building=church. I fully agree with that. note that building:use may record the current

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 2:03 PM Markus wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is > > indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or > > 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:44, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > For a vacant shop, I might tag 'building=yes' for the renderer (it is > indeed a building, I'm not lying!) and 'disused:building=shop' or > 'disused:shop=*' I don't have quite as good an answer for buildings > that fall in the area of, 'is a

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:22 PM Paul Allen wrote: > Yes, I'm aware there are other cartos that may handle things differently. > But the > standard carto is the one we use to check what we've done. Whenever I raise a point like that, there is a chorus of 'don't tag for the renderer.'

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 19:02, Andy Mabbett wrote: > > JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell > me what to use instead. > > On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor > [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout > how to tag "disused",

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 18:12, Kevin Kenny wrote: > If I recall correctly, JOSM favours lifecycle prefixes > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix, so you'd tag > `disused:building=*` or `abandoned:building=*` depending on how much > disrepair the building has fallen into. > The

Re: [Tagging] building=disused

On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Andy Mabbett wrote: > > JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell > me what to use instead. > > On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor > [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout > how to tag

[Tagging] building=disused

JOSM warns me that "building=disuse" is deprecated, but doesn't tell me what to use instead. On the wiki, nether [[Key:building=disused]] nor [[Tag:building=disused]] exist, and [[Key:building]] says nothing aout how to tag "disused", "derelict" or "empty" buildings. Is JOSM correct, what's the