I think the discussion regarding damaged is good, however I feel that this is a too fine grained quality for mapping from satellite images.
I would use ruined. Ruined can be fully destroyed or partially. If damaged my next question would be how much? A little? Very subjective to quantify. On 18 January 2020 9:34:58 am AEDT, Warin <[email protected]> wrote: >On 17/1/20 10:08 pm, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> >> >> >> 17 Jan 2020, 11:42 by [email protected]: >> >> I'm all for using the lifecycle prefix, >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix. I agreed >> that if there's still remains there use ruined or destroyed, not >> sure what the difference is though. >> >> ruined implies that ruins still remain, destroyed may mean that or >> that there is no trace at all >> >> in practice difference is minor if any > >Most of these will still have foundations in place, they may not be fit > >for reuse but they are there. Some fire places and chimneys too remain. > >I'll use ruined. Unless there are other ideas? > > >> Once it's been cleared you could use demolished, removed or >raised >> >> Probably razed, not raised. I see not real difference. >> >> , again not sure what the difference is. While damaged is not >> documented it seems the perfect fit since there is no other >> suitable tag for this on the wiki. >> >> damaged seems to me a poor fit as prefix, damaged building is still a > >> building, >> and I would expect building=something tag to be used. > > >By damaged I mean part of the building is intact but another part has >been damaged .. e.g. a truck has run part way through the building.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
