Talk:Key:disused:*
 Archives | |
|---|---|
| |
Opinion
- Sounds a good mult-purpose tag with many applications and can easily be removed if the thing comes back to life. MikeCollinson 17:43, 7 June 2007 (BST)
- Would this deprecate railway=disused? Andrewpmk 21:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- If this proposal gets through to the map features page, then someone could make a separate proposal to change the tagging of railway=disused to railway=*/disused=yes, but I don't want this proposal to be bogged down by railway issues. Whether people want to keep using railway=disused or not shouldn't influence the tagging of all other things were this is useful. --Cartinus 01:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In railways, disused is different from abandoned (disused = infrastructure is still on its place). Should we keep this distinction and propose new abandoned=yes tag? --Jttt 11:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- I made proposal for abandoned=yes - Proposed_features/Abandoned --Jttt 07:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
What about buildings? I agree that a disused pub is no longer a pub, as a disused shop is no longer a shop. But a disused building _is_ still a building. Deleting the building=* tag and replacing it by disused:building=* seems wrong to me. I'd prefer to be able to express that a building is disused as a property of the building, not as something that completely changes its kind of being. Bstein (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
- And that is why I use disused=yes with building=* or landuse=quarry Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Page is now edited to indicate that in this cases disused: prefix is a poor idea. If someone disagrees I would be happy to discuss this, preferable on tagging mailing list - but I am also active on wiki talk pages, OSM Telegram, US Slack and Polish section of official OSM forum Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
- abandoned=* ("features that have fallen into serious disrepair and which could only be put back into operation with expensive effort") and disused=* ("features that are in a reasonable state of repair but which are currently unused") are fundamentally flawed. "Abandoned" in English in the present context means that the owner or operator has given up a feature and usually has left it behind and has no interest in it anylonger. "Abandoned" says nothing about the conditions a feature is in. "Abandoned" describes an intention. This intention is usually not verifyable on the ground. "Disused" does not usually mean in English that something is not currently used. Usually "disused" is used when operations have been given up for a longer time, mostly even given up for good. In particular a disused shop and a vacant shop are not the same, they are almost opposites. The owner of a vacant shop wants it to be reused, while the owner of disused shop has no apparent interest in a re-use of the shop. Freetz 21:53, 16 Sep 2022 (UTC)
Demote tags into a disused: namespace
I've had the time to do something about [the above problems] on the main page. Let me know what you think. Out of "deference" to the nonsense wiki voting, I've retained the disused=yes since it captures the general concept of "this object is a disused thing", but also decided that it establishes a namespace, and that tags that might otherwise be confusing to renderers and are no longer relevant or no longer in use can be demoted into that to prevent them rendering or misleading people. It's pretty close to what I do already. I've added sections about nobbling tags that would otherwise be confusing, and shown people what to do to get things back into a sensible state.
Should I extend this rehabilitation to abandoned=* and demolished=* as well? --achadwick 18:28, 5 June 2011 (BST)
- Well it makes sense to me. You've added good clear description on there too.
- Normally I'm against the introduction of new "namespaces" (A.K.A. overly complicated tagging schemes involving colon characters) however in this case I imagine it could work well as a way of shunting the incorrect tags out of the way.
- It's not one of the options listed on Comparison of life cycle concepts as far as I can see. We should probably add it on there, and make it clear that the Key:disused documentation is following that approach now.
- -- Harry Wood 16:14, 14 June 2011 (BST)
- The comparison page didn't contain that exact syntax, but it did contain "<key>-<status> = <value>", which is equivalent except for small syntactic differences. I've changed that section accordingly. Pros/cons still apply.
- By the way, I don't quite agree with achadwick's edits to <status> = yes. Of course most of disadvantages of that idea no longer apply if "a namespace-based approach is used". But that's because you are actually using a completely different idea (the one formerly documented as "<key>-<status> = <value>") and just keep the disused=yes around as some kind of redundant historic relic. --Tordanik 19:10, 14 June 2011 (BST)
- Okay, refactored Comparison of life cycle concepts a bit, and moved the offending discussion of namespacing to the newly titled section. Regarding disused=* - like I say, I'm just trying to rehabilitate the description here to help mappers who read it tag more correctly. It may be that disused=yes has no real purpose after everyone fixes their data ☺ but actually I quite like being able to say that an object is "a building (building=yes); that's no longer used for anything (disused=yes); and it was a pizza parlour before it fell into disuse (disused:amenity=restaurant & disused:cuisine=pizza)".
Since OSM namespaces don't imply a "yes" value for the parent key - see service=*, particularly the recent namespaced additions to it! - I think you have to state a "yes" value for disused=* too.--achadwick 16:02, 15 June 2011 (BST)
- Okay, refactored Comparison of life cycle concepts a bit, and moved the offending discussion of namespacing to the newly titled section. Regarding disused=* - like I say, I'm just trying to rehabilitate the description here to help mappers who read it tag more correctly. It may be that disused=yes has no real purpose after everyone fixes their data ☺ but actually I quite like being able to say that an object is "a building (building=yes); that's no longer used for anything (disused=yes); and it was a pizza parlour before it fell into disuse (disused:amenity=restaurant & disused:cuisine=pizza)".
Right then... who wants to apply this to ruins=*? ☠ --achadwick 16:02, 15 June 2011 (BST)
- I do : ruined=* . However, someone suggested to better re-use the "abandoned:tag=value" schema and add a ruins=yes. Arguably, a ruined feature is most likely abandoned as well... but I am unsure which way is better. I just think that building=yes + ruins=yes is a bad idea, just for the same reasons building=yes + disused/abandoned=yes is a bad idea sletuffe (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)