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)
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.
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.