On Tue, 25 Aug 2015 19:33:04 +0200 Friedrich Volkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24.08.2015 22:49, Chris Hill wrote: > > I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be avoided. > > > > Suppose someone uses foo=bar + disused=yes. Someone else searches > > for foo=bar, he will find the objects with and without disused=yes. > > That's fine, because disused objects are still there, so they need to > remain retrievable. A disused church may still retain its frescos, a > disused adit may still be visited by chiropterologists, a disused > track may still be usable for tractors and hikers, and a disused > canal may be used by bathers or fishermen, or at least it is still a > barrier. It depends on object. Disused building is still building and disused=yes is OK in that situation. Disused tracks that is usable is still track (and disused=yes is OK). Once track disappears due to disuse it should be simply deleted. Tagging closed shop/pub with disused=yes is a poor idea. Closed shop is no longer place where one may buy things - at most there are some traces and possibility of reopening what in some cases may be mapped as disued:shop=*. > When someone is searching for a boat passage, he needs to filter out > (...) start_date in the future This one should never happen. Any objects like that are tagging errors. Objects like that should be probably tagged as in construction (with end_date in future) or proposed in case of nearly certain construction (with end_date in future) or not mapped in OSM (is there some other state beyond in construction/proposed that I missed?). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
