From OpenStreetMap Wiki
(Redirected from Talk:Key:ruined)
Jump to: navigation, search

Some problems with this tag

This tag overlaps with abandoned=* (though it could still be used together) and duplicates functionality of existing in-use key ruins=*. Therefore I'm recommending these tags on this wiki page instead. --Jgpacker (talk) 11:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The argument that it overlaps with abandoned=* is true. But just like disused and abandoned overlaps as well. I'd say a ruined building is both abandoned and disused, but an abandoned building might not be in ruin. Which mean that if I encouter a ruined building, I'd prefer to tag it with the worse (ruin) the fact it is abandoned beeing implied. One tag instead of two, and more focus on it's visual state (a ruin) than it's usability state (abandoned).
I've read Comparison_of_life_cycle_concepts's propositions, and the one if find the "least worse" is the <status>:<tag>=<value> schema, and if I want to transport it to ruined feature, then that is the way to go. Since the use of ruins=yes has allready been used in conjunction with building=yes, I think it will be confusing to use it now with abandoned:building=yes. I'm still unsure what is the best way to tag a ruined building, but I'll use ruined:building=yes for now, and be happy to change back when something better arise sletuffe (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
To be fair, I think ruined=* indeed have some arguments. It is true that disused=yes and abandoned=yes also overlaps (personally I think disused=* is enough, but I don't know what others think) . But I'm still a bit against the prefix ruined=* because lifecycle concepts are already fragmented the way they are right now (for example the other day some people were discussing whether to use shop=vacant or disused:shop=*), so I think we need a better overall scheme rather than adding more things. I changed the phrasing in the page a bit. --Jgpacker (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
I also think we need a better, more unified scheme ! but how do we do that without adding more things ? Should we use older scheme that have some flaws ? (I don't have the answer to that question). I see that life cycle concept are discussed since 2008 but a number of different usage have bloomed (I did not know about simple cases like "shop=vacant"). Some beeing simple but centered on one particular case, some beeing more global, but harder for usage or understanding. Since I have no idea what the best route is, I'll stick to Darwin's moto : "Only the strongest will survive" ;-) . Just document every options, time will do the rest sletuffe (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)