On Sun, 17 Sept 2023 at 20:25, Mark Wagner <mark+...@carnildo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 14:59:27 +0100
> Anne-Karoline Distel <annekadis...@web.de> wrote:
> > I thought that using photographic examples in the proposal would make
> > it fairly clear, but apparently not.
> >
> > If you come to a bench that is no longer there, "vandalised:" would
> > not apply. If the seats are damaged to an extend that you cannot sit
> > on it any longer, then it would. There is hope that the local
> > authorities or whoever puts up benches will fix it eventually, hence
> > the "temporarily out of order" in the infobox.
> While hiking, I come across a guidepost that's been sheared off two
> feet above the ground.  Was it accidentally hit by a snowplow (thus,
> "destroyed:"), or was it deliberately pulled over by a snowmobiler
> (thus, "vandalized:")?

+1. I think it would be better to use destroyed:=* (or damaged=yes --
depending on the severity of the vandalism, i.e., whether the object
can still be used or not) in combination with damage:type=vandalism.

Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to