Sounds to me that those pages were incorrectly deleted. Only because someone can tag the abandonedness of a single tag of a feature, doesn't mean that the tag that applies to the whole feature is deprecated.
Actually, sine best practice is to map each feature as an own element (unless maybe both features encompass the whole element, i.e. a building), the plain non-namespace tag would probably be used in the vast majority of cases. Even in cases where two or more features encompass the whole object, I can't really think of a use case where the namespacing made sense: For example a disused hotel in a stately building may be mapped on one element, but then, wouldn't the whole building not also be diused? Tobias On July 29, 2019 8:23:42 AM GMT+02:00, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: >I was going to fix the status of abandoned=yes which is currently >incorrectly listed as "obsolete". I thought it was probably >deprecated, since the wiki page was deleted when Key:abandoned:* >(namespaced) was made in 2015, but it's still used 40,000 times. > >The key disused (mainly disused=yes) is also used 60,000 times, even >though the situation is the same: no wiki page, and the Key:disused: >page suggests it is deprecated. > >Should these two be added to deprecated features, or should I recreate >the deleted pages and change the status to something other than >obsolete/deprecated? > >I see that there was just a mention added that landuse=quarry plus >disused=yes might be more sensible than disused:landuse=quarry. > >Joseph > >_______________________________________________ >Tagging mailing list >Tagging@openstreetmap.org >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
