Talk:Key:abandoned:building

I think this tag should be deprecated. An abandoned building is still a building (large visible object) but abandoned:building won't be rendered. It's better to use building=* + abandoned=yes. The "abandoned:" prefix should be used for non-physical features like shops or amenities. maro21 23:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
For me the states of a building on OSM are:

• building=(any value) - no matter if there are people inside, if it's used or not. It's just a structure with walls.
• building=ruins and building=construction - incomplete building, but still a building. For example without roof or windows.
• demolished:building=yes or [no building mapped] - there was a building in this place, still visible on aerial imagery but the tag used to prevent other mappers to draw it again.
  

abandoned:building=yes I would put in the first category - because it's still a building. maro21 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

+1 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• I think the renderer should be changed so that such buildings are simply rendered as normal buildings. (Nothing to do with the above suggestion, but I just wanted it mentioned somewhere: With the data, someone could also create a map based on the OSM data that has decay as a theme and then highlights e.g. abandoned buildings/rails/roads etc. in specific. So something like opendecaymap.org or something. I mean, for at least 125,000 buildings something like that could be interesting). Hiausirg (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

abandoned:building=* is a thing

@Maro21: I disagree with this change and deprecation. It seems to have been done without discussing it on tagging mailing list (unless I've missed it) and seems controversial. Previously, abandoned:building=* was used for "building which has fallen into serious disrepair and is not habitable or usable, and which could only be put back into safe operation with expensive effort, such as completely rebuilding the roof or walls". Your change seem to suggest that one should instead use either abandoned=yes or building=ruins for that, depending on amount/seriousness of disrepair. Especially, I'd like to point out:

• Rationale seem to be that "abandoned building is still a building (large visible object)". While I certainly can see that reasoning if one were talking about disused=yes (e.g. "disused building is still a building"), I would disagree that something qualifies as a building just because it used to be one and is still "large visible object". According to wikipedia, building is "enclosed structure with a roof and walls standing more or less permanently in one place". If the roof has collapsed and needs to be completely rebuilt, I'd argue that that structure is no longer a building, and as such, should not be mapped as building=* at all, but as abandoned:building=* (as was original status of this wiki before the change).
• Suggested replacement building=ruins is problematic due to many factors, not least of which is unclear use. According to its wiki intended use is for wholly different purpose (i.e. "sham ruins in an English landscape garden"), and while it has been abused a lot for ruined buildings (as well as historical ruins) too, increasing such confusion should really not be encouraged.
• In addition, building=ruins inherently looses information (e.g. if one replaces abandoned:building=church with building=ruins), which is a bad idea in itself.
• Also, "ruins" is even heavier state of decay than "abandoned" -- it is used for example if the building has deteriorated to the point that one can really only break it down and build from scratch, (and sometimes one can even no longer say what it was originally), then it should be tagged as ruins:building=*. But that is not a replacement for abandoned:building=*, in which (quote) "features will still have some physical form reflective of their former use visible in the landscape".

Thus, I'd like to revert to previous version of the page, with such clarifications and distinctions added, if that seems reasonable? --mnalis (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• On OSM we don't use Wikipedia's definition of building becasue they are contradictory. building=* tag has a very broad definition. It includes damaged buildings, building without walls, containers and other.
• "building which is not habitable or usable" is a judgement. On OSM we map what we see, not what we think we see. The very word "abandoned" is controversial because it is a judgement. Wheter in the tag "abandoned:building" or "abandoned=yes". How do we know a building is abandoned if we can only see it from the outside? Maybe someone lives there. The door is locked and we can't go inside to check it out.
• OSM is a map, and maps are used for orientation in the area. Any building, even such a one-story building, is a large object and can be used for orientation in the area, even if it has no roof or windows and even if no one lives in it. Removing such a building from the map, just because it is abandoned, is not a good idea.
• Building outline is something we see from above on aerial or satellite imagery. Number of floors, color or if it's abandoned or not are just details we can map in separate tags.
• Building=ruins has nothing to do with the discussion of the abandoned:building tag. It's nowhere said that building=ruins is a suggested replacement. The replacement for abandoned:building=* is building=* + abandoned=yes.
• For the same reason why we shouldn't use abandoned:building=*, we don't use "bad:highway=residential", "horrible:highway=residential", but we use "highway=residential + smoothness=bad / horrible" - becuase it is still a road, in worse state but still a road. I won't cycle on such with horrible smoothness, but I can use other vehicles to pass. Abandoned building is still a building, I can squat it or renovate it. maro21 16:22, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Maro21: I've tried to incorporate your view, as well as the fact that some other mappers disagree, into that article. Before marking things as deprecated features, one should have a widespread discussion - the more the key is used, the wider the discussion should be. It might be best to follow proposal process if the key is as widely used as this one. To address your views:

• ideally, commonly hold views (like those on wikipedia) would reflect the meaning of the tag in OSM wiki too, otherwise the value of the tag decreases (as some people are bound to mistag just by seeing the value, without reading the wiki page). Regardless of that, even the OSM wiki defines a building=* as "a man-made structure with a roof", which means that if it lacks a roof, it should not be tagged as building=*.
• Sure, it often might not be (at least not clearly) visible from satellite imagery for armchair mappers, but on-the-ground mappers can see more information. If there are no windows, no doors, and half a roof is collapsed, it can be known by on-the-ground mapper (even without local knowledge), that it is abandoned. There is often no "locked door" one would need to tresspass to see that. I hope newly added/updated gallery can make it clearer.
• OSM is much bigger than just a carto renderer (which is just an example of OSM usage). So "buildings are not removed from the map" - just things which are no longer buildings (according to both OSM wiki and common definition, e.g. wikipedia, e.g. they lack a roof) are tagged differently (and thus might, or might not, be rendered differently). Feel free to open issues for specific renderers if you thing they should render things better (many do render abandoned:building=* and building=ruins in separate styles) - I've noted that on main page too.
• as for abandoned:highway=* parallel, those seem to be used several dozen thousand times too. There are reasons why some mappers use lifecycle prefixes, even if one personally maybe do not agree with them. Sure, people can squat or otherwise live in collapsed structures without roof, under the bridge or inside carton boxes, yet we probably shouldn't map those non-building structures as building=* (at least not without widespread discussion) --mnalis (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

abandoned:building=* is not a good thing

Don't like abandoned:building at all. As mentioned by others, it's still a building. Adding abandoned: makes OSM data more hostile towards users - they have to cater to additional prefixes. For a basic visualisation, one wouldn't care whether a building is finished, but nobody lives there yet, is completely empty, has squatters, is abandoned save for one last flat owner... Also, in this case "abandoned" refers more to the building contents, not the building itself. If lifecycle is to be added, building=abandoned:apartments or building=abandoned:house seems more reasonable. --Richlv (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree totally. Some mappers feel that a building, abandoned or not, is still a building (large visible object) ... It's more than a feeling: Since visiblity of the object is given, visibilty on the map is a logical consequence and not negotiable or debatable. Software developers may indroduce dotted lines for the outlines of the building or something else to illustrate the status.--Geo Dät (talk) 16:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think abandoned:building=* is about who lives there or whether it is currently inhabited at all or how comfortable it is to live there... Did some wording give you that impression? If so, I agree that such wording would need correcting. Instead, the abandoned:*=* is about whether it is still to be considered a "building" -- which is quite different thing to "any large visible object". For example, building defines "building" as "enclosed structure with a roof and walls, usually standing permanently in one place". In OSM, it is more relaxed, but still generally in the line of "somewhere where you could hide to protect from the elements (or zombies) for at least some period of time".

So, IMHO, if for example the roof (and maybe some part of the wall) has collapsed, it is not longer a building=*, but instead abandoned:building=*. If most of the walls have collapsed too in addition to the roof, then it is even less of a building=* but instead ruins:building=*. And when even most of those are gone, and only concrete foundation (and perhaps a brick or two) remains, it becomes demolished:building=*. See lifecycle prefix for more details. Trying to tag all of those cases with same building=* would not look reasonable to me --mnalis (talk) 23:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense generally, but "abandoned" doesn't mean "partially destroyed" - for example, an abandoned car or an abandoned child wouldn't be evoking images of remains. If it's just walls remaining (a very frequent situation) barrier=wall might even be a more logical thing... And once the walls are gone, demolished: prefix seems like the next step. --Richlv (talk) 07:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Richlv: note that words used for tags in OSM (just like words used in law or medicine) have a specific (and sometimes even counterintuitive!) meaning compared to their colloquial (and even dictionary) uses. In particular, pay attention to lifecycle prefix wiki -- abandoned:*=* is to be used for "Still visible but fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with considerable effort" (something that ex-building with collapsed, yet not completely missing roof might be a good example of).

We seem to agree that demolished:*=* is for "Not existing anymore because of active removal. May have been used for features that are almost but not completely invisible" as defined in a wiki about that (almost?) final decay stage. It is just that I prefer having a tagging to indicate a state between the "newly built and fully functional building" and "no traces of building remain". Having to map remaining wall positions (with holes where they no longer exist), different building:part=*s, collapsed:roof position etc. to convey the same meaning sounds like too much micromapping effort for too little benefit to me. I'd rather just slap prefix "abandoned:" on that "building=whatever" tag on a polygon and call it a day. --mnalis (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)