On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 00:49, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm one of the maintainers of the Openstreetmap-carto style, but I > think the community should make tagging decisions based on what works > best for mappers and what makes logical sense, without worrying what a > particular renderer will do. > Ummm, but what makes sense depends upon what popularly-used renderers do, especially if there are two ways of doing things which renderers treat differently. If I map things that standard carto doesn't show, I can't spot my mistakes. > > In this case I believe the decision to "deprecate" the tag disused=yes > was made hastily without thinking clearly about the cases when it > would make sense. > That seems likely, now you've explained the history. It also applies to abandoned and other lifecycle prefixes. > But this is not always sensible in the case of physical features like > a disused man_made=water_tower - the feature looks the same whether or > not it is full of water, and general database/map users are interested > in these features as orientations points in the landscape, not as part > of the water supply network, so it's sensible to use > man_made=water_tower + disused=yes. > That matches my thinking on the issue. Others seem to agree. So, at the very least, the wiki needs to be amended. However, I'd feel happier if there were some assurance that we wouldn't have to amend the wiki yet again at some future point because somebody at standard carto decided that anything with disused=yes shouldn't be rendered. An assurance like that might also persuade other cartos to do the same thing. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
