On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 09:33:11 +1000 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13/08/2015 11:24 PM, Ruben Maes wrote: > > On Thursday 13 August 2015 15:10:14 Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 21:54:39 +1000 > >> Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> For example a demolished building .. may have a new building > >>> built on the same spot .. with the same outline. > >>> Leave the node data in OSM, change the tag building=yes to > >>> building=demolished (may not be rendered nor official OSM tagging) > >>> add a note as to who/why .. > >>> and then if rebuilt change the tag back to building=yes... with a > >>> source tag please. > >>> If the site has a different shaped building then the nodes will > >>> have to be changed, or the site gets used for something else .. > >>> then change it. But untill then leave the old data there. > >> This is a bad idea. Maybe [note=this building is demolished] to > >> protect against mapping from outdated aerial images may be OK. > >> > >> But expecting data consumers displaying buildings to filter out > >> building=demolished, building=razed, building=proposed etc etc is a > >> really bad idea. > > Or you use demolished:building=yes as I said an hour ago. > > > > This is clearer than a note IMO, > > allows to retain all tags of the demolished building for reference > > and caters for potential data consumers interested in demolished > > buildings. > > > > I like it Ruben. demolished: it is. > > Not just for use on buildings, but bridges, poles .. any structure > that could be rebuilt to the same dimensions, especially any with > foundations that could be reused. Note that features that are completely gone should not be mapped. This is OK for features that are no longer a building or a bridge but something is still left. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
