Well, removed:* wiki says “lifecycle prefix for features that do not exist anymore.”
To me, “do not exist” means that no part of it exist anymore. If the meaning was to say “only small parts still exist today”, it would (or at least should’ve) said that instead.
Still in the 1990ies when some excavation took place […]
Sure. When/if such archeological excavations were to take place, we have historic=archaeological_site and friends to tag that – at the moment such (quite rare) thing happens. Until then, it remains removed:building=yes.
Otherwise, nothing may ever be removed from the map, because, you know, if you dig down deep enough you may sometimes find remains of ancient Mesopotamian 5000 years old ruins (or more recent deep cellar used to illegally dispose of nuclear waste for profit).
So, in my opinion, mapper does not need to have a pickaxe and a showel to say that building does not exist at that place anymore (i.e. that something is removed:building=*).
to me removed seems to imply that someone (people) has removed it (like demolished)
Well, I’ll agree with you there are many definitions of “removed” in the average English dictionary. Luckily, the dictionary is not the source that matters for OSM – it’s own OSM wiki is the one source that actually matters.
And it says (and seems to have been saying for many years at least) “feature that do not exist anymore”. It does not dwell on the reasons or ways of removal, so they shouldn’t matter (and if they did matter, well, it’s way too late to change that meaning in the wiki)
I have mapped things like this with barrier=wall. Try to cross that field with a car and you will find out it’s a barrier.
While it is generally possible, it doesn’t seem appropriate in many occasions if it is actually known what it was, e.g. here it’s the ruins of a church or imagine it were leftovers of a synagogue burnt down during fascism. Seeing just „some walls“ would be ignorant.
Well, removed:* wiki says “lifecycle prefix for features that do not exist anymore.”
To me, “do not exist” means that no part of it exist anymore. If the meaning was to say “only small parts still exist today”, it would (or at least should’ve) said that instead.
the feature does not exist anymore, that’s perfectly fine and doesn’t imply there may not be any traces or leftovers. Maybe the wiki should be amended to state that it means it was removed, rather than doesn’t exist anymore?
I agree that we don’t expect people to dig for remains below the surface, but on the other hand if you know there is something below the surface, you can tag it. And I would hope someone who doesn’t see the feature on the ground would ask the author rather than simply deleting it.
It’s definitely possible
Be my guest and edit this “thing” I mapped to your liking. I don’t have a clue what is was!
I am not mapping things as X if I am not sure. This one was quite likely a church but I am not going to add this guess in the form of tags.
If you don’t know it, you can’t tag it (in a meaningful way)
If really no trace remains (so either destroyed or demolished might apply), I’d use removed:* instead (just like I would for other instances of destroyed / demolished as I explained, exactly for that reason).
If some ruins of it still remain, then it would be ruins:* instead.
“removed” sounds way more ambiguous than “does not exist” to me
But given confusion, it seems some improved wording would be welcome. Perhaps something like “No trace remains of removed object” would be less ambiguous?
UPDATE: clarified removed:* wiki as "features of which no visible trace remains (i.e. they don’t exist anymore). "
I agree that we don’t expect people to dig for remains below the surface, but on the other hand if you know there is something below the surface, you can tag it. And I would hope someone who doesn’t see the feature on the ground would ask the author rather than simply deleting it.
Sure, by all means map what you know! I don’t know of specialized tagging for such underground old remains besides historic=archaeological_site and similar, though.
This is an underground feature I mapped some years ago. The tags are a bit weird maybe.
It showed up on the aerial picture for easy mapping but was later covered with soil.
Interesting. As it is covered/under the ground, I’d maybe suggest to add either building:underground=yes oder location=underground to it.
Or rather covered=yes?
However, for some people the question will naturally arise as to whether something that has been covered (covered or filled, is there a difference that can be made maybe?) with soil can still be regarded as an existing building or not.
I like the latter. The first one is so complicated.
@Mateusz_Konieczny I feel that when there are very good aerial pictures or when you have surveyed and measured remaining walls you can draw the outline of the walls and map them as building=wall. I’ve done that many times.
naturally it is all gone now, because in the meantime they reconstructed the volume of the removed castle and built a facade that should resemble in structure and appearance the former castle, it is called “Humboldtforum” , you can see some pictures of the overground situation in this diary post: https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/dieterdreist/diary/40735
We have here dozens of foundation plates, left over from World War 2 hangars that were demolished with explosives. I mapped them as a polygon with
building=hangar
ruins=yes.
An alternative way of mapping ruins could be as a parallel to highway=track with tracktype=grade1-5
building=*
ruins=yes
destruction=grade1-5
If only foundation remains, I think it would be preferable to tag them as ruins:building=hangar instead, as it is no longer “a building” in such cases (e.g. when it misses walls and a roof; especially when only foundations remain).
ruins:* prefix is documented at Lifecycle prefix - OpenStreetMap Wiki (which also explains other prefixes with more and less damage than “ruins”, so you can use that instead of grade1-5 problematic suggestion)
