Hi all
There are a couple of places I’ve marked as ‘disused’ near me.
They’re now not appearing on the map at all. Is this the right behaviour?
These places are very much still there ‘on the ground’: is there a better way of showing that they’re there, but out of action?
See this disused:recreation_ground
and this disused:garage
Thanks,
Edward
disused: is never rendered on OSM Carto. For buildings disused is rather attached to functions (like disused:shop=yes), not the building in itself.
It might make sense to report it here, so this could be rendered:
Thanks, I will do that.
My speculative ‘thesaurus’ searches in the wiki also produced this:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned
I see both tags are listed as lifestyle prefixes
I’ll change the car park to ‘abandoned’ as it’s now scheduled for demolition.
Argh, and of course it reappears, so people might drive up and try to use it!
Changed name to “Market Car Park (closed)”
Comments welcome.
Or does it? Maybe I’m just looking at a really old tile (zoom=19), predating my disused: tag?
Too early for this confusion, I’m heading back to bed 
Will take another look soon.
Woah, I just went to GitHub and am five pages deep in explanations of fork-and-pull, each page with more jargon than the first.
Is this necessary? Can I just hit ‘New issue’? (please? ;))
I’m sure you can, but what is the issue that you’re wanting to post? Is it to get disused:* objects to render? The whole point of the various lifecycle tags is to break the standard tagging so renderers and other data consumers don’t mistakenly display something that isn’t functional. For example, if a former parking lot is no longer being used as a parking lot and has therefore been tagged as disused:amenity=parking, it would be very confusing to have it still render as a parking lot.
I’m not sure why kocio suggested posting an issue for this, since they already said that this is the intended behavior.
Ah, well I’m proposing to break that behaviour that breaks the standard tagging, then! Here’s why:
If a disused mutlistorey carpark renders as a building, but not as a car park, that makes perfect sense.
But it disappears from the map altogether, as if it were already demolished, and that seems silly.
(A more minor point is that I feel, less strongly, that it’s useful to show it as disused, for as long as it takes semi-locals to get used to the fact that it’s no longer usable: ‘don’t bother travelling’ is just as useful a bit of map info as ‘get here this way’, imo)
A disused multistorey carpark which is tagged as building=yes should be rendered as such. Isn’t it?
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/296621144
Strictly not tagged building=yes but rather abandoned:building=garage - should cover it?
(disused:etc seemed to have the same behaviour)
Or does it also need building=yes?
Yes, that’s how it should work. If a way is tagged with building=yes + disused:amenity=parking + disused:parking=multi-storey, the latter two tags will be ignored, but the object should still be rendered using the building=yes tag. It definitely shouldn’t disappear. Maybe the building tag has mistakenly been removed.
Thanks. It was my mistake: I understood that as it was still called a building, it would still be rendered as such.
There’s the recreation ground here, too, that doesn’t render, but that’s still got its area=yes tag.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/236061991
I could give it landcover=grass? Another solution?
Hi, for the disused multi-storey car park, where the actual building still stands unused, the logical tags should be :-
access=no
building=yes
disused:amenity=parking
disused:name=Market Car Park
disused:parking=multi-storey
This tells you what the building was and what it is now, it removes the name from being rendered, says there is no access, leaves the building rendered but tagged as disused. This then shows what has happened to the tagging and why.
If the building is to be reused then abandoned is the wrong tag disused (for the time being) would be better.
That’s super on the car park - thank you.