Talk:Key:disused:*/Archive 1
Status of disused key
- Proposed-by
- Thewinch
- Proposed-date
- 2007-4-21
- Status
- Accepted
- Acceptance-date
- 2008-5-21
Voting for disused key
I approve this proposal.--Cartinus 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)- I approve this proposal.--Robx 06:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Thewanderer 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Daveemtb 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Chillly 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Vrabcak 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Dieterdreist 15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--SlowRider 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Michael gd 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Uboot 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Hawke 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Ulfl 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Walley 21:59, 30 March 2008 (BST)
- I approve this proposal.--ShakespeareFan00 17:35, 7 April 2008 (BST)
- I approve this proposal.--Patou 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Chrischan 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--BDROEGE 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Christian Karrié 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Master 14:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Tordanik 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Uboot 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal.--Jttt 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Does it apply to hospital?
Resolved: Yes, disused=yes has always applied to any tag. In it's original form, you shouldn't have, though. The schema has since been updated to recommend tags which no longer generate inconsistencies. --achadwick 18:32, 5 June 2011 (BST)In my area there exists a hospital that no longer is in use. Is it advisable to map it as amenity=hospital together with disused=yes? Routing softwares etc. shouldn't lead people who are looking for hospitals there. --Erik Lundin 23:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
- That sounds right to me. --Hawke 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
- I urge not using this tag. Since the hospital is rendered as a hospital (with basically no hope of that ever changing), and since this tagging scheme is unfriendly to data consumers like routing software, I would expect hospitals decorated with disused=yes to be findable by routing software. Don't use this; it's a bad tagging scheme. --achadwick 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
- To update myself, I've updated the main page with an extension and some recommendations which now generate tag-sets without inconsistencies. Far better, IMO. --achadwick 18:32, 5 June 2011 (BST)
Move to deprecate
Resolved: Recommend stuffing disused tags into a disused:*=* namespace. That should solve it. --achadwick 18:28, 5 June 2011 (BST)Okay, let's deprecate this tag already. I've just been misled by a disused station tagged according to this scheme which doesn't even exist on the ground, looking at the Bing imagery. I'll admit it; my initial enthusiasm for this way of working was wrong. The devs, quite correctly, are never going to implement this[1][2]. They're correct because it's a backwards-incompatible nightmare. If the information needs to be retained, it would be much better manners to data consumers to suffix the "main type" key with :former, prefix it with disused: or whatever. Anything that isn't one of the exact strings matched by our rendering rules, basically. Any seconds? --21:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Achadwick Revision as of 21:44, 2 December 2010
- Agreed! Or if deprecating is out of fashion we need to "label as a bad tag to use".
- Despite the old vote above, I believe I'm right in saying that these days the tag is widely accepted to be a bad idea. The reasons are spelled out over at Comparison of life cycle concepts#<status> = yes.
- It's crazy that this tag is sat here documented as if it is completely fine to use it.
- -- Harry Wood 13:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Does that go for abandoned=yes and demolished=* as well? --Andrew 12:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- For demolished it does, without a doubt. A demolished what-ever is no longer that what-ever; it doesn't look like it, nor does it function like it. For abandoned, there's a subtle difference between physical structures and their function: an abandoned building is still a building, but the amenity/shop within is no longer an amenity/shop. Abandoned might thus convey something interesting about the physical structure, but such features should not have any tags that imply a "feature by use". Alv 12:13, 4 June 2011 (BST)
I'm working on drinking_water taps. Some of them are broken. Ideally they'd still be in OpenStreetMap in some manner, but should either show up differently in the rendering or be dropped. Thoughts? Brycenesbitt
- Personally, I'd likely go with, say, was:amenity=drinking_water. Alv 12:13, 4 June 2011 (BST)
Rename to "key:disused:" ?
Resolved: renamed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)It should be used as namespace now, wondering if it would make sense to rename the page to "key:disused:" to reflect that? Do we have some better methods to create wiki-pages for namespaces? RicoZ (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know of any better methods. See also other prefixes such as Key:addr --Tordanik 12:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes we should split content about single tag and about namespace. But we should create Template:PrefixNamespaceDescription and Template:PostfixNamespaceDescription first, see Template:Description and Template_talk:Description, Wiki organisation. Xxzme (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Renamed, please discuss here: Talk:Lifecycle_prefix#Testing possibilities to rename prefix keys RicoZ (talk) 12:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)