Proposal talk:Vacant
Discuss Proposed features/vacant here:
More general tag for disused things
I don't see why a disused shop is different from a disused pub, a disused library, and so on. There should be a more general tag for these, not a special case for shops.
Additionally, if you tag shop=vacant then this is a bit inconsistent with other shop=x tags; a shop=alcohol sells alcohol, but a shop=vacant does not sell a product called 'vacant'. So in user interfaces (such as 'show all nearby shops') it needs special handling. A user agent that didn't know about the shop=vacant tag would still show these nodes as shops, which they are not really; they are buildings that were once used as shops.
So I would suggest not adopting shop=vacant but instead some more general scheme; and making sure that there can be no possible confusion between a shop and a building-that-was-a-shop by not overloading the 'shop' key to include the latter.
-- Ed Avis <eda@waniasset.com> 17:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- See Comparison of life cycle concepts (and please, whenever this same tired old discussion comes up anywhere, make sure people are linking to that comparison page, so we can cut to the chase)
- So a more general scheme might be good, but as that page illustrates, there are unfortunately several to chose from. Many of these have serious problems for data users. In the meantime I find shop=vacant tag very useful for practical mapping purposes, and better than most lifecycle schemes when it comes to not screwing up end uses.
- To answer your point about shop=alcohol sells alcohol... that's true but shop=convenience doesn't sell convenience. A user agent making an assumption that the value of the key is a product type, will encounter other problems anyway. For types of use I can envisage, listing a shop type called 'vacant' is mostly not a big problem
- -- Harry Wood 14:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
disused=yes
how about using existing disused=yes tag ? (Optinally, shop and name keys could be removed so the renderers won't show it; or they could remain if renderers know how to handle disused tag). In bith cases the node itself would still remain along with it's history what used to be in that place, but the renderer should not show (or should show as disused, see link above) the shop/amenity/... --mnalis 18:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- I prefer tagging with disused=yes, and this should be used on a building=yes structure. If the shop was entered as a simple POI, that POI should be removed, since the old shop is longer longer operating. If the corresponding building is then tagged as disused, it is obvious that a next tennant could use it for something else than retail. Doj 02:44, 2 February 2010
- +1, I support. --Kslotte 19:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Obvious and rather major problem with disused=yes. Do I really need to explain? Tell you what I'll copy & paste from Comparison of life cycle concepts "if an application does not know the tag, it will assume that the feature is useable and might display it as such or use it for routing" -- Harry Wood 14:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
building=vacant
The approved value for "building" was settled to be only "yes". However, this is one case where I think it would be logical to expand the "building" key value to include "vacant", so that a building is either "building=yes" implying it is occupied, with additional modifiers (shop, etc.) to indicate the function, or it would be "building=vacant", implying that it is not occupied, and is performing no function. I can imagine two other values, "for_rent" and "for_sale", both implying "vacant", as well. My original thought was that those categories were too dynamic, but, especially in these hard economic times, I've seen buildings remain for sale or rent for well over a year. Note these designations would only apply to a complete building, not to offices, stalls, or sections of a building. Turbodog 15:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Change of purpose
Sometimes you can see name of the shop, but you won't recognize what was sold inside (if the name is something like "Tom's store" that give no clue) while the shop was still operative.
But I think it would be goot to map these "shops", as usually sooner or later another shop will appear at the old place, so this will give people hints that certain area may need resurvey if this tag is too long at some place.
--Bilbo 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Conversely, quite often a vacant building that was formerly a shop will be reopened as something else, such as a church, a health (exercise) facility, etc. -- Turbodog 02:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- So these are both arguments in favour of shop=vacant right? We throw away the old value of the shop tag. -- Harry Wood 14:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)