On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 14:11:46 +0200
Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> On 08/31/2015 01:41 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > It is not OK to use one tag (for example amenity=hotel) and add
> > second tag that negates or massively change its meaning (for
> > example adding involuntary=yes to amenity=hotel instead of using
> > amenity=prison). Additional tags should clarify meaning of main
> > tags rather than negate it.
>
> Agree with most of what you say, just the name "trolltag" implies that
> someone was doing this in order to disrupt when often no negative
> intention is involved.
It was not intended this way. I thought about disruption caused by
tagging scheme. Probably some better name would be better, but I have
no good ideas.
> > In many cases (like this two cases above) correct mapping is no
> > mapping whatsoever.
>
> Yes, with one exception - if a building has been demolished but is
> still visible on the aerial imagery most commonly used in the area
> (usually this will be Bing), then - at least until we have a "meta
> database" that contains information important for the mapping process
> - it may make sense to leave *something* there (perhaps a way tagged
> only with "note=the building you see on bing was demolished") in
> order to ensure that the building isn't re-created again and again by
> armchair mappers.
This case is mentioned ("or maybe temporarily converting it into
note="there was building here now it is demolished").
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
