Hi gentlemen, I completely agree with Ole to say we really need a consistent life cycle scheme.
Nevertheless, using <life state>:*=* to describe life cycle of keys instead of objects doesn't sound good to me. If an object has 3 successive different use cases, we would tag the two first as disused:*=* but we won't be able to say which one was first. There's a big lack of time information in OSM which is although what a life management scheme needs. I'm a bit disappointed about the versions system used to manage edit history of objects: it should be used to manage real-life cycle too but I'm aware it's not so easy to implement. I won't have time to start a proposal on this pretty theoretical aspect of the OSM tagging scheme. All I would like to say is "*+1*". Even if it's a very interesting thing on power networks, I will remove the life cycle chapter of power generation refinement proposal since it will be very hard to get a consistent set of tags to manage such a transversal workflow. Cheers. 2013/4/8 Ole Nielsen <on-...@xs4all.nl> > 2013/4/8 Ole Nielsen <on-...@xs4all.nl <mailto:on-...@xs4all.nl>> >> >> >> 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? >> > > The exact term can be discussed, that's why we need a proposal. I think > there are good reasons to keep track of demolished features. One is for > recording the past (think a "openhistorymap.org"), another reason is to > prevent accidential remapping of features that have recently been > demolished but are still visible in aerial imagery. The undergrounding of > power lines is a good example. > > Ole > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.**org/listinfo/tagging<http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging> > -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
