On 14/01/2020 19:02, Markus wrote: > was:shop=supermarket Le 16.01.20 à 12:34, Marc M. a écrit : > 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.
Le 16.01.20 à 12:53, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : > Well. Done. You. On 16/01/2020 12:01, marc marc wrote:> you want me to believe that every time an object has gone, Le 16.01.20 à 14:26, Dave F via Tagging a écrit : > It's not gone. We're talking about buildings I have put back above the line to which I replied and which makes your answer wrong. in case of a was:SHOP=*, the previous shop (what's inside the building) has gone. and if you are consistent with yourself (you say that osm is not a database for memorizing history) when I survey it, the only thing I see is that the previous store was not there anymore. it's why I and some others use was:shop=oldvalue + shop=newvalue it is usefull to warn the next mapper about a recent change. the current discussion with disused shows that there are 2 meanings : still exists but not used <> doesn't exist anymore. was: has the merit to be clear that what is described doesn't exist anymore, no matter how it happened. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging