2013/4/8 Ole Nielsen <on-...@xs4all.nl> > On 08/04/2013 09:07, Alberto wrote: > >> Well, disused:*=* and abandoned:*=* are widely used, you could simply link >> to their Wiki pages. >> For construction, we should make a general proposal separated from power >> refinements, as you suggest. >> > > We really need a consistent life cycle scheme that defines all stages of > an objects life, that is proposed, construction, (active), disused, > abandoned and historic (completely gone). The <life cycle state>:<key>=* > scheme is my favourite. Somebody just needs to make a proposal (it would > basically be a generalisation of the disused:*=* tag). > > See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/**wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_** > concepts<http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts>for > a comparison of current ways of tagging life cycles. > >
not so sure, that "historic" is the right term for stuff completely gone, currently the key "historic" is used mainly for stuff that was created a long time ago, but which hasn't necessarily vanished in the meantime (most of the stuff categorized under "historic" is actually still there, so there would be some risk of creating confusion using the same term for another concept). Besides this I agree that it is nice to tag these states in a uniform way, simply use another term for "historic", maybe "disappeared", "vanished", "demolished", or simply delete and formalize a changeset tag? cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
