On 03-Jan-18 01:59 PM, Warin wrote:
----------------------- So OSM decaying things - with decisions
leading to the next category
where something has ceased being used (note, observation and judgement
required, fairly easy);
_disused_: -
where putting it back into service requires substantial work (note,
observation and judgement required)
_abandoned:_
where restoration is uneconomic (note, observation and judgement required)
Some object to this as it requires judgement, but then so too does the
step between disused to abandoned. This definition is not as fuzzy as
that of disused to abandoned
_ruin/ruins/ruined:_ (ruined matches the tense of the above tags so
would make sense that way)
where the feature no longer exists, there maybe traces, but few of
them. (note, observation and judgement required though this is fairly
easy)
_demolished/removed/was/destroyed/razed/gone/past/former_ - all the
same thing as far as results on the ground - the feature no longer
exists. So why the need to signify the method? In one word
non-existent - and that might be the best tag to use?
Some want to put these in to try and stop additions of things that are
not there e.g. a building in satellite imagery that has been
demolished. So 'non_existent:' might be the best to hope for.
As well as non-existent there is 'absent' and that might be better as it
is a single word without negation. Is it easily translated into other
languages? It has a Latin base.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
