Talk:Key:disused:/Archive 1

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 I approve this proposal.--Cartinus 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Robx 06:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Thewanderer 08:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Daveemtb 10:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Chillly 11:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Vrabcak 14:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Dieterdreist 15:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--SlowRider 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Michael gd 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Uboot 16:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Hawke 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Ulfl 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Walley 21:59, 30 March 2008 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--ShakespeareFan00 17:35, 7 April 2008 (BST)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Patou 17:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--achadwick 21:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC) I was wrong. See below. --achadwick 21:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Chrischan 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--BDROEGE 20:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Christian Karrié 22:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Master 14:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Tordanik 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal I approve this proposal.--Uboot 23:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I approve this proposal 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)
ok, I agree with that plan but am not a template hacker. Should we ask some mailing list or forum? RicoZ (talk) 13:19, 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)