On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 14:12, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
in case of a was:SHOP=*, the previous shop (what's inside > the building) has gone. and if you are consistent with yourself (you say > that osm is not a database for memorizing history) when I survey it, > the only thing I see is that the previous store was not there anymore. > it's why I and some others use was:shop=oldvalue + shop=newvalue > it is usefull to warn the next mapper about a recent change. Sometimes I use was: for that, more usually I put the info in a note. I tend to use was and disused on former chapels and churches that are of a style that are instantly recognizable as such. There are a lot of chapels around here that are no longer in use for anything. There are a lot of chapels around here that have been converted to other uses (mostly domestic residences). I usually put building=chapel or building=church on them and was or disused on the amenity= place_of_worship. And a note as to former denomination. If you want to find active churches/chapels, you can; if you want to find buildings that were formerly churches/chapels, you can (people interested in genealogy often want to do that). the current discussion with disused shows that there are 2 meanings : > still exists but not used <> doesn't exist anymore. was: has the merit > to be clear that what is described doesn't exist anymore, no matter how > it happened. > Better than was or disused for stuff that is no longer there is removed. I did that for a couple of phone boxes outside a building for which there are many images scattered around the internet. They're completely gone, no trace of them remains, please don't put them back because you saw them in an image. There's no other way of warning an armchair mapper not to add them without mapping them with a removed prefix (or was, or disused, but they don't really mean removed). For me, was: is for use on something that is still there but no longer serves its original purpose. Like the pub near me which closed years ago but, because it's a listed building, is required to retain a (very old) pub sign. It looks like a pub from the outside, but it isn't any more. https://goo.gl/maps/nM1Nr5jVfW2tUfc86 And I added a note to that effect (belt and braces). Any mapper driving past it might think it was a pub that somebody hasn't yet added. By now we'll probably have woken up the strict interpretationalists who insist on following "rules." "We don't map history" isn't a rule, it's a very simplified interpretation of "We don't map things that aren't there." Which, itself, is a very simplified interpretation of "We don't map things that aren't there in a way that they get rendered, or clog up the database, or have other bad effects. We only map things that aren't there if it's necessary to stop armchair mappers making invalid corrections." OSM isn't (or shouldn't be) about blindly following a strict interpretation of supposed rules. It is (or should be) about producing a map that is as useful as possible, and there are guidelines (that may look like rules) to help you do that. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
