Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 10-Jan-18 10:15 AM, Richard wrote: On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:37:26PM +1100, Warin wrote: On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote: On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote: 2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and repurpose categories on the

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:37:26PM +1100, Warin wrote: > On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote: > > >On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote: > > > >>2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and > >>repurpose categories on the main page. > >> > >>I hoped

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote: On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote: 2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and repurpose categories on the main page. I hoped to bring some organisation to the page and simplify the understanding. If this

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote: > > 2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and > repurpose categories on the main page. > > I hoped to bring some organisation to the page and simplify the > understanding. If this has exposed misuse GOOD! It

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 05-Jan-18 10:46 PM, marc marc wrote: Hello Warin, I find unfair and surprising your last wiki change while the discussion is still ongoing. 1) saying that historic: is one in the category "Repurpose" is amazing. let's take for example the example found of the wiki page of the first key you

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Fri, Jan 05, 2018 at 11:46:51AM +, marc marc wrote: > Hello Warin, > > I find unfair and surprising your last wiki change while the discussion > is still ongoing. > > 1) saying that historic: is one in the category "Repurpose" is amazing. > let's take for example the example found of the

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:04 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* with > start and end dates .. that records what was there then, not its

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

Hello Warin, I find unfair and surprising your last wiki change while the discussion is still ongoing. 1) saying that historic: is one in the category "Repurpose" is amazing. let's take for example the example found of the wiki page of the first key you put in this category

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Thu, 4 Jan 2018 11:04:57 +0100 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > sent from a phone > > > On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* > > with start and end dates .. that records

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04-Jan-18 09:04 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* with start and end dates .. that records what was there then, not its present state ...

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

... also a dismantled (or razed) railway is often mostly still "there". Have a look at this relation and follow its course on satellite photos. You will see that it is nearly completely still "there", not as railway, obviously, but as

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

sent from a phone > On 3. Jan 2018, at 23:06, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have moved some disused:railway=* from OSM to OHM as railway=* with start > and end dates .. that records what was there then, not its present state ... disused:railway is about something that is there

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

> Warin wrote: >> >> In which case I like marc tagging solution; >> >> building=school >> building:use=residential >> >> That tags 'what is on the ground'. Kevin Kenny wrote: > To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of cleverness > on the part of the renderer, particularly since

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

sent from a phone > On 3. Jan 2018, at 21:17, Kevin Kenny wrote: > > for instance, a private home that was once a schoolhouse, > still bears the school's name on the lintel, looks for all the world like > an old schoolhouse, but is nevertheless a private home.

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04/01/2018 02:52, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: building=school building:use=residential That tags 'what is on the ground'. To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

2018-01-04 3:05 GMT+00:00 Kevin Kenny : > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: > >> By contrast, adding 'historic' and adjusting tagging to current use >> is already a common practice among those who fix repurposed >>

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 03-Jan-18 01:59 PM, Warin wrote: --- So OSM decaying things - with decisions leading to the next category where something has ceased being used (note, observation and judgement required, fairly easy); _disused_: - where putting it back into service requires

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04-Jan-18 02:05 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kevin Kenny > wrote: By contrast, adding 'historic' and adjusting tagging to current use is already a common practice among those who fix

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:52 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > By contrast, adding 'historic' and adjusting tagging to current use > is already a common practice among those who fix repurposed > features from the GNIS import. I didn't invent it. > > Oh, and I oughtn't have

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > In which case I like marc tagging solution; > > building=school > building:use=residential > > That tags 'what is on the ground'. > To me, it seems to presuppose an unrealistic amount of cleverness on the part of the

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04-Jan-18 01:19 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com > wrote: If I had any idea when the schools went out of service! I'm really not up to doing the historic research; they've not been schools in my

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 6:13 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I had any idea when the schools went out of service! I'm really > not up to doing the historic research; they've not been schools > in my memory (and I'm an old man). > > > Does OSM record the past? Or does it record the

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04-Jan-18 09:31 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote: On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Richard > wrote: > Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not > appear to contemplate. I have changed the wiki article to

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 05:31:52PM -0500, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Richard wrote: > > > > Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not > > > appear to contemplate. > > > > I have changed the wiki article to mention this.

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

Le 03. 01. 18 à 21:17, Kevin Kenny a écrit : > I've used this to tag things that have been > repurposed; for instance, a private home that was once a schoolhouse, > still bears the school's name on the lintel, looks for all the world like > an old schoolhouse, but is nevertheless a private home.

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Richard wrote: > > Repurposing is a part of the life cycle that the Wiki article does not > > appear to contemplate. > > I have changed the wiki article to mention this. However most of the > current use of "historic:*" seems to be for other

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Wed, Jan 03, 2018 at 03:17:44PM -0500, Kevin Kenny wrote: > On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > historic: used for things that are historic. Being historic does not > > imply the state of repair, use or where they are in their life cycle. > > > >

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 04-Jan-18 06:49 AM, yo paseopor wrote: No, In my opinion is not a good idea to delete an existing thing in OSM. History is also part of OSM. Why do we have to respect the historic thing in a node or way not deleting them if then we then delete the whole thing. I am saying 'historic' is

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 9:59 PM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > historic: used for things that are historic. Being historic does not > imply the state of repair, use or where they are in their life cycle. > For want of anything better, I've used this to tag things that have been

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

No, In my opinion is not a good idea to delete an existing thing in OSM. History is also part of OSM. Why do we have to respect the historic thing in a node or way not deleting them if then we then delete the whole thing. Lifecycle prefix can achieve these items inside OSM. Also it is not a good

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

> > From the wiki page https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix > > I disagree with the use of this for life cycle; > > historic:  used for things that are historic. Being historic does not imply > the state of repair, use or where they are in their life cycle. mee too. But as

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 03-Jan-18 12:38 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote: On 03/01/18 11:45, Kevin Kenny wrote: 'Razed' is an English synonym for 'demolished.' 'Raised', on the other hand is 'lifted up', and can be used to mean 'built.' I think you'll find that this is just a spelling error by the OP. Yes,

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

leisure=folly ? (tours are growing in popularity...) On 03/01/18 12:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: sent from a phone On 3. Jan 2018, at 01:36, marc marc > wrote: 1) ruin: - where a totally new feature build would be cheaper

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On 03/01/18 11:45, Kevin Kenny wrote: 'Razed' is an English synonym for 'demolished.' 'Raised', on the other hand is 'lifted up', and can be used to mean 'built.' I think you'll find that this is just a spelling error by the OP. I don't understand what the difference between 'razed' (if

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

sent from a phone On 3. Jan 2018, at 01:36, marc marc wrote: >> 1) ruin: - where a totally new feature build would be cheaper than a >> rebuild. > > how can a standard mapper estimate the cost of repair <> rebuild ? +1, what about the new airport in Berlin,

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:36 PM, marc marc wrote: > Le 03. 01. 18 à 00:26, Warin a écrit : > > At present decaying features look to have the following progression for > me; > > you miss some. > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix > > > ruin: no wiki

Re: [Tagging] tagging for decaying features

Le 03. 01. 18 à 00:26, Warin a écrit : > At present decaying features look to have the following progression for me; you miss some. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix > ruin: no wiki documented - where a totally new feature build would be > cheaper than a rebuild. found 0