On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 19:15, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.ke...@gmail.com> wrote:
'Church'/'chapel' seem to be the unique example that everyone resorts > to when identifying the former purpose of a building - because in so > many places or denominations, the architecture is distinctive. Yep. Although I'd argue that supermarket is also (usually) distinctive. There are supermarket chains that often repurpose other buildings for small branches, but most of the big chains have a distinctive style. Big building with large windows on at least one side being common to all. Similarly, industrial buildings (at least those put up in recent decades) tend to have a distinctive style. It's not universally true of all churches/supermarkets/industrial units. My view is that if you'd give directions like "Turn left after the church" because it obviously looks like a church and used to be (or still is) a church, then tag the building as a church. > Mapping 'things that used to be there' to warn mappers that they aren't > there - when there's strong but incorrect external evidence that they are or > were in the field - is an entirely reasonable thing to do. One of the previous times this came up, a few from the "We don't map history" crowd disagreed. I feel that to be an overly-strict interpretation of the rule. Using tagging that doesn't render for those things is also perfectly fine - > we don't want them cluttering the map. > More than just fine. Desirable. In fact, more than desirable, closer to required. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
