On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 at 00:24, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 27/09/19 21:52, Paul Allen wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 11:02, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > > so disused:amenity=pub ; building=pub (it looks like a pub); >> building:use=house (or is it :usage?) >> > > Erm, I can't think of any pub I've ever been in or past that was in a > building that > could be described as looking like a pub. > > > Yet some want to identify a disused pub as a pub for navigation purposes? >
Not me. I argued that some buildings have recognizable architectures that are useful for navigation, and therefore building=church is still appropriate even if it is no longer amenity=place_of_worship + religion=christian. Most pubs fall under building=yes or perhaps building=house. Some say only building=yes and building=no are valid, I disagree. Possibly the building still carries signage similar to some old shops that > have moved on? > If that is the case then a tag to say that would seem appropriate? > old_signage=Hillbrook Pub/Thomas Cook/Toys R Us ?? Maybe. Not something I've considered. But disused:amenity=pub is useful for a pub which has closed but still retains the fittings and there's still a possibility it may re-open as a pub. Whilst was:amenity=pub is useful where the pub has been converted but people are led to believe there is a pub there by old data on various review websites. That is especially true if the converted pub still uses the pub name as its house name (I've mapped a few of those) or retains pub signage because it's a listed building and the signage cannot legally be removed (I've mapped one of those and its house name is the old pub name, to add to the confusion). As for misleading old signage, maybe that's better handled as something like not:name=Thomas Cook. We already use not:name to indicate to mappers that some sources of information (such as out-of-copyright maps) are incorrect about road names. Or maybe we should use old_signage as well as not:name. And, for Thomas Cook, maybe also not:shop=travel_agency, but we already have enough to send the "OSM does not map history" crowd apoplectic. But the only way to keep them happy and attempt to reduce potential mismapping without tags like those is to come up with a new API, new changeset tags and editor changes so you get warnings if you try to revert something that a mapper has already stated, via a changeset, to be wrong. I'd stick with what we have, even if it does cause a little clutching of pearls. It also means that data processors can (if they wish) choose to make use of tags like was:amenity=pub to present extra information to users. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
