On 7/2/20 10:45 am, Paul Allen wrote:
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 at 23:29, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harv...@gmail.com
<mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I disagree with the whole premise. To me both
building=yes+ruins=yes and ruins:building=yes means exactly the
same thing and should be interpreted the same way.
But they AREN'T. The way you suggested was the correct way to tag a
ruined
building DOES NOT RENDER. And you never even noticed, you just made a
blind assumption and told me how to do things based upon your incorrect
assumption.
The choice of one tag over another above is base on one thing: does it
render the way wanted.
Is the desired solution to have life cycle prefixes ignored by renders
so a ruined thing is rendered the same as non ruined things?
Let say a hospital has collapsed.
The crisis mapping page I linked to would have you add the tag
damaged=collapsed to the amenity=hospital.
So the render would render the hospital the same as a fully functional
hospital. That is certainly not want I'd want.
You cannot now say that it should be tagged another way because it is a
hospital, why would the rules change from one object to another?
Better if life cycle things were rendered .. but different from fully
functional things.
Personally I don't mind that some things are not rendered by the
standard map, there is a lot on it now. Keeping everyone happy is not
possible.
And, by the way... I do know it does not render. And I don't care if it
renders or not... I tag what I see as truth.
You can't say on one is when you want it rendered on the map and
one to hide it. That's essentially a render=yes/no tag, which I
don't think has any place in OSM.
Really? Explain to me the difference between building=yes +
disused:amenity=place_of_worship and building=yes. Both
render as buildings. Neither render as a place of worship. One has
additional
information that is of use to people. If you have your way, I can
and WILL
decide whether or not something should render as a place of worship by the
presence or absence of amenity=place_of_worship and that tagging will be
entirely correct and match reality on the ground. You just want me to
tag in a way that loses information. I see no merit in that.
The tagging should not decide what is rendered. It is the render that
decides what is rendered.
amenity=place_of_worship says there is an active place of worship here.
disused:amenity=place_of_worship says there is a non active place of
worship here.
Where is the loss of information? None in the tagging. If you want the
render to show a disused place of worship the same as an active place of
worship then you could lie and usee the tag amenity=place_of_worship,
thus sending anyone looking for an active place of worship to a disused
place of worship.
As for using 2 features on the one OSM object, well to be pedantic then;
building=* should be on the building outline.
palces_of_worship should be on the area of the property if you have that
information, otherwise on a node.
If one renders and not the other that's a rendering bug and you
can't assume that will always be the case for all maps.
Some would regard it as a bug. From comments made by the OSM standard
carto people here, I suspect they see it as a feature.
There are many thing not rendered by the OSM standard carto map. I still
correctly tag them because it is what is there. Some people chose to tag
their home as an embassy because they like the way it shows up on the
map, it is called tagging for the render.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
