Proposal talk:Life cycle relation

Untagged objects

I notice that this relies on the objects remaining untagged. This is something of a violation of the principle of least astonishment. How do you propose to avoid people seeing the objects are untagged and then tagging them? Chriscf 15:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

At least in JOSM, the fact that there is a relation using this way is displayed directly under the (empty) tag list. If required for clarity, you could always add a note tag telling other mappers what this way’s purpose is. --Tordanik 18:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag values

Please include life_cycle=preserved and life_cycle=restored, in order to be able to describe ensembles like Heidelberg Castle. Ipofanes 09:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

Some people don't like the name ("don't like" in the sense that they abhor it so much to reject the proposal just because). Mightn't it be wiser to go for a different key name? Not that I have problems with it. Ipofanes 10:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple phases?

How would multiple life and death phases for an object be managed? Let's say a pub opens in 2004, closes down 2005, opens again in 2006, closes down again in 2007, expected to open again in 2010. Using life_cycle:start_date is limited to a single phase.

Perhaps the liveliness of an object over time should all be in a single key-value pair, e.g.

alive=2004..2005,2006..2007,2010..

Parsers that cared only about the present would parse backwards from the end. Lorp 21:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)