building=ruinsbuilding=ruinbuilding=ruined have problem of not actually following building= classification - basically all of them were NOT build as ruins (with very rare exceptions)
Still it sorts of fits for structures which are existing building but ruined, such as
but maybe building=* + ruins=yes can be recommended as a clearly preferable solution in all cases for this?
And then we have buildings where something is not a building anymore, but remains are visible.
building=collapsed was used (by HOT mappers) but is very, very problematic: that is NOT a building anymore! Tagging it as building is not a good idea (and mismatches how building=* tag is used in general)
demolished:building=razed:building=destroyed:building= were also used - but it is also used for cases where remains of building are gone and nothing remains
maybe ruins:building=*ruined:building= would be fitting for cases where ruins do not qualify as building anymore?
there is also historic=ruins ruins=building though it is controversial as some people claim that it is only for historically important buildings, not for anything old
And we have sham ruins: buildings intentionally constructed as ruins, for decoration. building=sham_ruins ? To distinguish from building=ruins ?
building=ruinsbuilding=ruinbuilding=ruined - is building=* + ruins=yes always better for ruined building but still building?
Do we have anything better than ruins:building=* for existing remains of building - ruined so much that it is not a building anymore?
Is building=sham_ruins a good tag for building in ruined state, intentionally constructed as such?
(do we need tag for sham ruins which are not a building? For example only a single wall is constructed pretending to be remains of a church - see
)
Would it be a good idea to have a new, tag say gone:building=* for marking ones visible solely on aerial images and in danger of accidental remapping? (such objects still shouldf be deleted after aerial images are updated) Yes, we have demolished:building=razed:building=destroyed:building= - which are used both in cases where ruins remained and where ruins are gone?
Maybe gone_temporarily_kept:building= to make clear that it is only temporary and may not be used for mapping historical objects which are not in danger of remapping from aerial imagery by armchair mappers?
but maybe building=* + ruins=yes can be recommended as a clearly preferable solution in all cases for this?
while I think building=* with disused=yes (not occupied at the moment but looks ok), abandoned=yes (deteriorated but still a building) is better than the prefix version (because it’s still a building, a building doesn’t have to be used in order to be a building), for ruins this is more debatable and (maybe depending on the amount of degradation) I tend to use ruins:building =* for these.
building=ruinsbuilding=ruinbuilding=ruined - is building=* + ruins=yes always better for ruined building but still building?
requires local knowledge
Do we have anything better than ruins:building=* for existing remains of building - ruined so much that it is not a building anymore?
if it’s not a building anymore it seems suitable
Is building=sham_ruins a good tag for building in ruined state, intentionally constructed as such?
seems so
(do we need tag for sham ruins which are not a building? For example only a single wall is constructed pretending to be remains of a church
I’d say if it’s pretending to be ruins of a building it is ok to tag it with building=sham_ruins
Would it be a good idea to have a new, tag say gone:building=* for marking ones visible solely on aerial images and in danger of accidental remapping? (such objects still shouldf be deleted after aerial images are updated) Yes, we have demolished:building=razed:building=destroyed:building= - which are used both in cases where ruins remained and where ruins are gone?
no, the available tags are sufficient and imply the building is gone
While I personally like the lifecycle prefix (ruins:building=<former-type>) approach, I think we should also consider the opposite case: we tag buildings which are still under construction as building=construction + construction=<future-type>. In my opinion, there would be some merit in mapping these two analogous cases by the same tagging method.
to me these seem ruins from the picture. If I’m proven wrong by someone restoring them, it could be retagged anyway
IMHO could be seen as
building=*
ruins=yes
for me this would have been an argument towards using the “established” tagging style also for ruined buildings: for example building=ruins + ruins=cowshed for thisbuilding.
From an editor developer’s point of view, it would be much preferable to only having to support one style of lifecycle tagging for a particular kind of map feature. But maybe that’s wishful thinking.
yes, hence the twinker smiley, actually we have some synonymous status here, as it seems, and we could make this somehow better defined, or stretch more which tags are synonymous and which bear subtle or less subtle differences in meaning.
I would argue that at this stage it is not a building at all and not going to be building anytime soon, so building= is just trap for all data consumers.
If it is still a Building (i.e. the walls and roof are still standing), then I agree it should be tagged with building=yes (or more specific e.g. building=house etc.) - the extent of the usage/damage can be marked with extra disused=yes (it looks mostly fine, but it is not being used for a long time; but not vacation house / dacha) or abandoned=yes (e.g. broken windows, holes in the roof).
Do we have anything better than ruins:building=* for existing remains of building - ruined so much that it is not a building anymore?
Yes, if it is not building anymore (e.g. lost roof and/or walls), I’d go with Lifecycle prefix:
for still repairable state (e.g. fallen roof) it might be abandoned:building=*,
if it is worse (some walls collapsed too) it becomes ruins:building=*,
if it is much worse (e.g. only foundations / collapsed bricks remains) it becomes destroyed:building=* or demolished:building=*
it no trace remains (but still visible on current satellite imagery) it might become removed:building=* (to prevent armchair mappers re-mapping it until new imagery becomes current).
Is building=sham_ruins a good tag for building in ruined state, intentionally constructed as such?
Fine with me, as original bulding=ruins for that purpose has long lost credibility due to tagging practices.
hmmm, I would still tag “only foundations / collapsed bricks remains” as ruins:building=* and mapped “utterly gone without trace” as destroyed:building=* or demolished:building=*
maybe I should map differently next time, though destroyed:building=* or demolished:building=* at this point seems unlikely to be reliable indicator are there traces of anything or not
I plan to document https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:ruins:building as a good key for former buildings ruined so much that they are not a building anymore, but with ruins being present - preferable over destroyed:building=* or demolished:building=* as these are not clear that ruins are still there.
I’m not against using ruins:building=* for that too. Wiki however does say under demolished:
May have been used for features that are almost but not completely invisible
But it does seem to slightly suggest that this usage is not recommended anymore (although it has been in the past, and may still be - I at least was not aware of the wiki change and have been using it for such for decade).
though destroyed:building=* or demolished:building=* at this point seems unlikely to be reliable indicator are there traces of anything or not
That’s one of the reasons why I prefer removed: to demolished: / destroyed: in cases when no trace is left or original structure: it is not ambiguous regarding remains - nothing remains if it was removed.
Other reason why I prefer removed:* is that I don’t need to know history of how it has ceased to be - which is the main distinguishment between demolished:* (gone because intentional demolition by man) and destroyed:* (gone because force majeure e.g. earthquake, flood…)
Sounds good to me. Please do make clear what “not a building anymore” means exactly (e.g. “at least no roof anymore and/or one or more walls have completely or partially collapsed, or worse stages of decay: like only rubble or even only foundations remaining”)
in cases when no trace is left or original structure: it is not ambiguous regarding remains - nothing remains if it was removed.
There can still be remains if something was removed. To give an example: in 1950 the East German authorities blew up the royal castle in the center of Berlin and in the following year removed the remaining rubble. In 1970 they built a new structure on the site (the so-called palace of the republic). Still in the 1990ies when some excavation took place, part of the castle cellars returned to light.
Other reason why I prefer removed:* is that I don’t need to know history of how it has ceased to be - which is the main distinguishment between demolished:* (gone because intentional demolition by man) and destroyed:* (gone because force majeure e.g. earthquake, flood…)
to me removed seems to imply that someone (people) has removed it (like demolished)
/https://tf-cmsv2-photocontest-smithsonianmag-prod-approved.s3.amazonaws.com/00813007877c81eb0fe7df20203a7602adebaf7e.jpg){kind=link}
