please discuss here: Talk:Lifecycle_prefix#Testing possibilities to rename prefix keys RicoZ (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Usage of the lifecycle prefix
(I hope this is the right place to post this. This is one of my first contributions to the wiki, if not the first). It seems the abandoned lifecycle prefix is not widely used compared to the deprecated abandoned=yes tag. So much that people tend to get back from it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66830223/history Renderers and OSM client applications also seem to ignore it.
Is there any way to promote the lifecycle prefix usage? And is it still the recommended way of tagging?
- It is used quite often - http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=abandoned%3A but obviously not everyone did hear about it yet.
- There are problems with the wiki and taginfo making it hard to see for users who missed the discussions in the mailing lists:
- many redirect exists such as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:disused%3Dyes redirecting from disused=yes to proper documetnation. The problem here is, that taginfo in this situation will display the "wikipage available" for disused=yes which some people take as confirmation that it is a valid way to map something. Fixing that right now..
- the wiki is missing proper templates for namespaces, not just this one.. making it hard to search for the prefixes, hard to see taginfo etc
- RicoZ (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Btw did you try to contact the user who has done the last edit to see why he has done it? Meanwhile I have opened a ticket here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2124 RicoZ (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Rendering of abandoned features
Those are not normally rendered, some specialised maps may render some of them. It is also possible to ask opencarto/mapnik for rendering specific features but consider the comments in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2124 .
For aeroways one possible solution may be to use for example natural=meadow + abandoned:aeroway=runway. However I am not sure which solution would be correct and rendered for asphalt or concrete runways. RicoZ (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Many thanks for this. I've read the discussion, and also a couple of linked discussions, such as the abandoned/dismantled railways discussion. I'm a bit reluctant to tag these runways as meadow as they are now runways made of dirt in the middle of a dirt (and low vegetation) desert (that used to be an island long ago). The runways are actually visible, but don't have a use - not even a new use I mean, unlike Berlin's disused runways that became a footpath for example - so I see nothing that justifies another tag on top of the existing. I'll leave them as they are for now, I would be tagging for the renderer otherwise. --Shlublu (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)