On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote:
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.
What headers/terms would you suggest?
As the things were getting confusing, for me at least, I though some
organisation was needed.
Birth is a universal term that is easily understood and translated.
Decay too is a fairly universal term. Death might be a step too far.
This organisation has caused some to think on it, a good thing.
So I would keep it, feel free to change the headers!
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.
Giving some guidance can lead to a more considered result. Some will simply use
the first term they come across.
If a single OSMwiki page can present the options in a clear way then the
mappers may consider the alternative and make their choice.
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=...
Had not considered that. Not something I would use so not something I care
about.
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.
I am for tagging that - what it looks like and, if different, what its present
use is.
I would not be tagging another past use other than the present, and what it
looks like.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
