On Thu, 26 Sep 2019 at 17:53, Markus <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Sep 2019, 18:43 Martin Koppenhoefer, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> an unused building remains a building, hence the building=* tag should be >> kept. >> > > All disused physical objects i can imagine remain physical objects. Are > you saying that we shouldn't use disused: for physical objects? > Looking around my town... Disused toilets. Building still retains toilet facilities. Local group hopes to take control from the county council and re-open it. AFAIK, not used for storage or anything else. In reasonable repair, although some vandalism apparent and boarded over. Disused toilets. Not sure who operated them. Windows and doors boarded over. Disused house. Some graffiti. A window boarded over. AFAIK, not used for storage or anything else. Disused petrol station. Dilapidated to the extent some would call it abandoned. If it's used for storage then it's of not-worth-stealing, waterproof items because breaking in would be easy and the roof is lifting. https://goo.gl/maps/Bc2fUnhAXe5VyrRt9 Disused non-residential building. Some graffiti, paint peeling. May be used for storage, may not. Not kept in good repair. Etc. Some of those I know are not being used for anything, not even storage. Whatever their original purpose, the building is disused. One question is should they be rendered, and most people seem to agree that they should. Should the buildings be tagged as disused? So the wiki implies. If they should be tagged (in some way) as disused, then how? -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
