On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote: > > 2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and > repurpose categories on the main page. > > I hoped to bring some organisation to the page and simplify the > understanding. If this has exposed misuse GOOD!
It was good to point out the problems with "historic:" but don't see any gain in the reorganisation, especially as "birth" and "decay" are very poor section headers to organise that. > As I have stated before, I am against using the tag historic within life > categories. indeed, there are many problems with it. > I would suggest this is a different topic, repurpose is not something I am > using, but my thoughts are; > > Repurpose > > Where a feature has changed porupose. As an example a school changed to a > hospital. There are 4 taggs in use; was: past: former: and some uses of > historic:. > > The 4 tags should be merged. Of these I prefer former, or failing that past. suffice to say that there are enough alternatives. No need to everengineer it, time will tell which tags will prevail. > Unfortunately these can only indicate one change. For instance a country > mansion built as a home, > changed to a convalescent hospital during 'the war', back to a home after > 'the war' and is now a museum. So 4 states of use. if the approximate time of the changes is known the date namespace can be used. Otherwise chain one of the prefixes in a consistent manner eg former:former:building=school + former:building=hospital + building=... > I personally see this a a case of using OHM to tag the past rather than > expanding OSM. if it looks like a typical school but was repurposed than it is worth to keep the knowledge in OSM. Richard _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
