Le 03. 01. 18 à 00:26, Warin a écrit : > At present decaying features look to have the following progression for me;
you miss some. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix > ruin: no wiki documented - where a totally new feature build would be > cheaper than a rebuild. found 0 occurrence of ruin: it is a problem ruined: <> ruins: (taginfo show that ruins: are more often than ruined: but having one documented namespace should be better) > raised: no wiki documented - where most of the feature has been removed, > so little remains that it is hard to distinguish. found 0 occurrence of raised: it's not enough to have demolished: ? I only found raised without namespace (bad idea because all tools need to check this tag to known that the feature is fact doesn't exist) > gone: with 35 occurrences, I think it's better to use a more common namespace like was: > Should the following be adopted and if so with what definitions? > 1) ruin: - where a totally new feature build would be cheaper than a > rebuild. how can a standard mapper estimate the cost of repair <> rebuild ? > 2) raised: - where most of the feature has been removed, so little > remains that it is hard to distinguish. what is "most" for one object ? I think that have a meaning only on a relation with several objects. imho abandoned: could also be used in this case for individual object, other namespace are better. so I don't see in witch case this additional namespace 'll be usefull Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
