Proposal talk:Vandalised

I know I encouraged you to propose it on Mastodon, but after some thinking, I think it's better to make it `broken` or `useless`, because you can't really be sure it it's broken because of vandals or lack of maintenance.

I have never seen a bus shelter, post box or telephone box spontaneously combust, I mean that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, but the more likely reason, when you look at the photographs, is vandalism. B-unicycling (talk) 13:50, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Damaged

I wonder if `damaged:` might be a better prefix. Because sometimes the intentionality of the damage is hard to assess, and because 'damaged' allows tagging clearly accidental damage, like a wall hit by a car. In the end, whether the damage was accidental or intentional doesn't matter to most users and maintenance workers. Vincent De Phily (talk) 14:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Fair point. Maybe my rage about the vandalised bicycle repair station led me to get carried away with the wording. B-unicycling (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. "vandalism" implies more than just the state of current non-functionality, it also implies the reason for the state of the object and thus might be harder to infer compared to just `damaged:`. --Bierphysik (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 For 'damaged' from me. I have often wished for this prefix before, when none of 'disused', 'abandoned', or 'destroyed' seem to fit. --Graptemys (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Incosistent with other livecycle prefixes

vandalised rather describes the reaseon for a feature being e.g. demolished and not the current condition, like other prefixes do. --Map per wiki (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree and think it would be better to use either destroyed:=* or damaged=yes (depending on the severity of the vandalism, i.e., whether the object can still be used or not) in combination with damage:type=vandalism. destroyed:=* and damaged=yes have the advantage that they can also be used when the reason for the damage or destruction is unclear (e.g. vandalism or accident or natural phenomenon). --Dafadllyn (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

"Destroyed" and "vandalised" are not quite the same thing, and how damaged does something have to be to be out of order?B-unicycling (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, “destroyed” and “vandalised” isn’t the same thing, but vandalism can be the cause of destruction (or damage), for which we have the key damage:type=*. So in my opinion we just need the new value vandalism. --Dafadllyn (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Too broad meaning

In the examples you listed some vandalized features are unusable, and some like the guidepost can still be read. Especially tagging a still usable guidepost as vandalized is not a good idea. --Map per wiki (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe not the best example, but I couldn't find any better ones. What about those that point the wrong way? That renders them useless, and I'm sure it wasn't the wind.B-unicycling (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The word "vandalised" describes the action that caused the damage but not the current state. I think this prefix would likely get used on both functional (painted) and non-functional (physically destroyed) objects, with no way to know which ones should still be displayed or used by data consumers. This may even be different for different objects, as paint would probably make a guidepost unusable but not a bus stop. --Graptemys (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Temporarily out of order

I advice not to tag an object as vandalised in a region where vandalised objects are usually repaired or replaced rather quickly for the reason explained at Good practice#Don't map temporary events and temporary features. --Dafadllyn (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to keep track of how quickly and if at all certain features will be repaired. I presume bus drivers report vandalised bus stop shelters, but who reports vandalised bicycle stands and repair stations? I'm trying to make it easier for local authorities to find these vandalised features without having to drive around every week to find them. Maybe OpenLitterMap is the better solution after all. If it's being used by local authorities; I don't know. B-unicycling (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know how this works in other countries, but in Switzerland, vandalism can be reported to the police (either online or at a police station). Besides, some municipalities operate online tools where vandalism and/or other damages can be reported (see example from Zürich). Nevertheless, i like your idea of creating a map that helps local authorities find vandalised features, but i think that OpenStreetMap is not suitable for this goal. I think it would be better to create a project similar to OpenLitterMap, which uses OpenStreetMap as the underlaying map. --Dafadllyn (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Confused with Vandalism

This might make people confused with Vandalism. -- yellowsoar(talk)