Tagging for demolished building where foundations remain?

Help and support Tagging help & support
1

Hi all,
Getting super confused on how to tag these so they render correctly for the casual web viewer. Lots of previous topics but cant find a working answer.

So, mapping a historic industrial site where some of the buildings have been removed but the concrete foundation slabs remain visible and original buildings are still referenced for visitors.

All the lifecycle demolished tags seem to assume complete removal and therefore do not show on the rendered map.

Best compromise so far seems to be:
name=name shown in visitor info pack
building=industrial
building:levels=0
surface=concrete
historic=ruins
ruins=*

Anyone have a better solution, before I go update everything :slight_smile:

2

There are lots of maps that show data from OpenStreetMap, and itā€™s up to each one to decide what to show and what not to show. I suspect that lots of the general purpose ones would probably decide not to show former building foundations, but something with a more historical focus might.

Would I be correct in guessing that the main map that youā€™re talking about is the ā€œstandardā€ one at osm.org? If so, that has a fairly conservative approach to which tags it supports, and in your case I would definitely look somewhere else.

1 Like
3

Yes, by ā€œstandardā€ I was referring to the native OpenStreetMap web interface.

Aside from the debate of data vs renderer Iā€™m really after confirmation of what I should be tagging these sort of ex-buildings as to be in line with current practice before I update/add them.

4

As there is no building there it seems clearly incorrect.

Adding false data to force rendering in specific tool is widely considered as incorrect.

Are these tourism attractions with their own names?

In such case tourism=attraction may be not wrong and result in some rendering in many tools.

5

Site is a tourist attraction with a few hundred discrete buildings enclosed in it. These range from ā€œmaintained and still in useā€ all the way through to ā€œall signs removedā€

Rendering of something which is visible to the eye in standard OSM web interface is a bonus, but not a requirement. Iā€™d mainly like to get the tagging right first time.

6

I used man_made=foundation few times but I am not sure is it great tagging

historic=ruins seems fitting in your case

7

I did consider that one as itā€™s accurate for whatā€™s there but I felt like it implied it was a new foundation rather then remains of a building

8

If itā€™s a facility attractive to urbex then maybe:
tourism=attraction
attraction=abandoned_facility
start_date=
end_date=
name=

example:

9

Have you considered lifecycle prefix tags? Instead of building=industrial it would be ruins:building=industrial or demolished:building=industrial.

Whether or not a particular renderer can display things tagged with lifecycle prefixes is a different matter, the first thing is to tag them as best we can with existing tags or if existing tags can not convey the information devise some new tags.

2 Likes
10

I think that man_made=foundation is useful in both cases.

I used it for constructions that (at time of mapping them) was abandoned for years and abandoned after pouring foundations.

But I think it can be used also for cases where only foundations remains from ruins it where construction is active and they finished pouring foundations.

1 Like
11

Demolished in OSM means completely removed;
where foundations remain would use ā€˜razedā€™ instead;
ā€˜razed to the groundā€™ implies the common practice whereby everything below ground level is left undisturbed so that in a future development the builders will be aware of any disturbed -therefore likely to subside under a new imposed load- ground.

Would use ā€˜foundationā€™ where a building project was suspended after breaking ground but for some reason the project wasnā€™t completed.