Talk:Key:abandoned:*

Renaming

please discuss here: Talk:Lifecycle_prefix#Testing possibilities to rename prefix keys RicoZ (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage of the lifecycle prefix

(I hope this is the right place to post this. This is one of my first contributions to the wiki, if not the first). It seems the abandoned lifecycle prefix is not widely used compared to the deprecated abandoned=yes tag. So much that people tend to get back from it: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/66830223/history Renderers and OSM client applications also seem to ignore it.

Is there any way to promote the lifecycle prefix usage? And is it still the recommended way of tagging?

Thanks a lot, --Shlublu (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It is used quite often - http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=abandoned%3A but obviously not everyone did hear about it yet.

There are problems with the wiki and taginfo making it hard to see for users who missed the discussions in the mailing lists:

• many redirect exists such as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:disused%3Dyes redirecting from disused=yes to proper documetnation. The problem here is, that taginfo in this situation will display the "wikipage available" for disused=yes which some people take as confirmation that it is a valid way to map something. Fixing that right now..
• the wiki is missing proper templates for namespaces, not just this one.. making it hard to search for the prefixes, hard to see taginfo etc

RicoZ (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Btw did you try to contact the user who has done the last edit to see why he has done it? Meanwhile I have opened a ticket here: https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2124 RicoZ (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I just did - I wanted to be sure that abandoned: was the proper way to go first :-) Thanks for the ticket! --Shlublu (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, the user told me this was a mistake as the runways are still unused. --Shlublu (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. The ticket has been closed as the scope was too generic... see next topic. RicoZ (talk) 12:54, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Rendering of abandoned features

Those are not normally rendered, some specialised maps may render some of them. It is also possible to ask opencarto/mapnik for rendering specific features but consider the comments in https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/2124 .

For aeroways one possible solution may be to use for example natural=meadow + abandoned:aeroway=runway. However I am not sure which solution would be correct and rendered for asphalt or concrete runways. RicoZ (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I've read the discussion, and also a couple of linked discussions, such as the abandoned/dismantled railways discussion. I'm a bit reluctant to tag these runways as meadow as they are now runways made of dirt in the middle of a dirt (and low vegetation) desert (that used to be an island long ago). The runways are actually visible, but don't have a use - not even a new use I mean, unlike Berlin's disused runways that became a footpath for example - so I see nothing that justifies another tag on top of the existing. I'll leave them as they are for now, I would be tagging for the renderer otherwise. --Shlublu (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Half built

Also note how to tag cases like "half built", where construction has stopped temporarily or to resume perhaps in the future etc. Jidanni (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ploughed-up track tagging and rendering in OSM (id)

I have been checking the tracks in my local area and some sections have ploughed up. Following the example of abandoned:highway=unclassified, I have changed these sections from highway=track to abandoned:highway=track.

1 Should I have done this? Is there a better tag? demolished:highway=track seems more appropriate but the demolished: prefix seems to be discouraged ("Use sparingly").

2 Note that abandoned:highway=track and demolished:highway=track only appear in id if "Other Features" are selected and not if "Past/Future Features" (Proposed Construction, Abandoned, Demolished, etc) are selected. This would seem to be an issue.--TinyTrouble (talk) 08:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This tracks were demolished so demolished:highway=track is better than abandoned:highway=unclassified. Is it likely that people will remap this tracks by accident? If not then just delete them Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Note that "demolished: prefix seems to be discouraged" because mapping demolished features is dubious Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)