2016-09-20 10:38 GMT+01:00 Derick Rethans <o...@derickrethans.nl>:
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>> There are some major redevelopment works just starting in central
>> Lincoln. The old bus station has closed, and a number of streets and
>> car parks between it and the rail station are now shut for the
>> construction of the new transport hub. In the meantime, there is a
>> temporary bus station to the south of the station.
>> To reflect all of this, I need to tag the affected roads, car parks,
>> and existing bus stops. I’m sure that the wrong thing to do would be
>> to simply delete everything that is soon to depart - although if
>> anything is most likely to want deleting it is the old bus stops - but
>> what is the right way? Tagging the roads as access=no is simple
>> enough, with a note, because I’m not sure (yet) of the end status. But
>> is there a preferred way, and what about the car parks and the old bus
>> station? How should that be dealt with.
> If the items no longer function as how they are described, and not will
> come back, I would delete them right away. It makes no sense to have
> "broken" objects in the database. And then add "landuse=construction"
> around the area.
> If it's temporary, then... "it depends". access=no works for the roads.
> Not sure about other clever tags :-)
Generic advice would be to choose some useful "lifecycle prefix":
I guess you could prepend "construction:" or "disused:" onto objects
that were _temporarily_ unavailable. I'm no expert on what's best
You can also prepend "demolished:" or "removed:" for things that are
actually gone - there was a discussion about a month ago on this list,
where the idea came up to do this kind of tagging as a precursor to
actually deleting the item from the database. This might seem a bit
weird but I like the idea that it makes it clear, in a
machine-readable way, exactly why the objects are deleted from the db.
Talk-GB mailing list