Don't use disused:shop=yes on non-shops

[Discostu36]

When an amenity, healthcare facility, etc. is closed, SC adds disused:shop=yes. See, for example, here. This is adding wrong data, as the lifecycle prefix should match the former tag.

How to Reproduce

I guess this happens every time that you mark a location as vacant.

Expected Behavior

The (former) main tag of the facility should be altered by adding a disused: in front, like explained in the wiki.

Versions affected

SC 56.0, probably also later, there was no mention in the changelogs.

[Discostu36]

If you want to avoid using the value because it could be incorrect, as @matkoniecz argued in https://github.com/streetcomplete/StreetComplete/issues/2707#issuecomment-816471983, at least the key should be preserved, e.g. disused:amenity=yes.

[westnordost]

This is more of a missing feature than a bug, but I agree, it should be done. (Or, use shop=vacant after all.)

Unfortunately, the code for this is quite scattered right now and assumes that tags like disused:amenity (...office, club, craft, ... ) are not used, so this all should be handled in a newly to be defined function named e.g. fun makeDisused(tags: Tag) or similar in de/westnordost/osm/Lifecycle.kt (or similar).

(If someone wants to contribute this, start with searching for usages of "disused:shop" in the code.)

[matkoniecz]

This is more of a missing feature than a bug, but I agree, it should be done. (Or, use shop=vacant after all.)

If disused:shop=yes is bad in case of emptied amenity then surely shop=vacant is also bad?

For shop-like amenities disused:shop=yes seems not worse than disused:amenity=yes to me.

[Helium314]

For disused amenities I think it's be better to keep the value. disused:amenity=yes could also be a disused waste bin, vending machine or car park.

[matkoniecz]

That runs into problem that disused:amenity=doctor claims that there are still visible remains of doctor office there.

StreetComplete user is not asked about that.

So it should be either disused:amenity=yes or disused:shop=yes or shop=vacant

Or StreetComplete should ask to distinguish between "empty vacant space, traces of former business are gone, or POI changed in meantime and you see traces of a different POI" and "you can still see remains of XYZ business". But that seems far too complex and low value.

[westnordost]

That runs into problem that disused:amenity=doctor claims that there are still visible remains of doctor office there.

Can you link to the documentation that claims this? I didn't know that remains of the previous place need to be visible for disused:shop=* to be tagged.

[matkoniecz]

OK, they do not be visible by surveyor but they still need to be there. If there are no traces at all then it no longer qualifies. And asking user about this seems to much. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:amenity and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:*

(I have not edited too much this pages IIRC)

[westnordost]

Right. I read this as - in this case - the shop space still exists.

[matkoniecz]

I would say shop space still exists - if everything like signs and equipment was scrubbed and former bakery cannot be distinguished from former doctor office, then it is not say disused:amenity=doctor

[westnordost]

Er, I am at a loss. Can you cite the documentation that claims this? And if so, how do you propose to project that into StreetComplete?

[Discostu36]

I also can't find in the documentation that a disused: shop or amenity must still be recognizable as this specific kind of feature.

If we wanted to be very exact whe could, in a case where a user selects that the feature isn't there anymore, ask, if there are any traces left (e.g. a vacant shop) or not (e.g. it has been turned into an apartment). For the latter case you could use abandoned: instead.

But maybe this is more complex than necessary. I don't see a problem if SC used disused: in a case where another lifecycle prefix might be more fitting. The main purpose of these prefixes is to remove objects from the map temporarily, it is in my opinion not very important that the exact prefix is used.

[matkoniecz]

I also can't find in the documentation that a disused: shop or amenity must still be recognizable as this specific kind of feature.

If it is not recognisable anymore as given feature type then it is going to fail "reasonable state of repair but which are currently unused" ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:disused:amenity ) and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability

Though of all tagging issues this is going to be the least important one.

[westnordost]

Right, fine. So, it is irrelevant for us, and so is this discussion. In the app you can state that it is vacant now. If the place was ruined now, i.e. the building it was contained within is ruined, then nobody would answer that it is vacant now.

The cited sentence does not mean that it must be recognizable as an ex-bakery, an ex-doctors' office or whatever.

[westnordost]

I am contemplating whether to return using shop=vacant. The tag is not going to go away, after all, so might as well use it. Its meaning is more broad, i.e. other than disused:shop=yes I'd say it includes

• shops that have always been vacant (e.g. newly constructed shops), i.e. never had a tenant

• it describes the shop space being vacant, i.e. the now, rather than what it was before (disused:*)

[mnalis]

If you're looking for a feedback, I do not like either shop=vacant or (hardcoded) disused:shop=yes. For example, I am asked if tourism=guest_house is still here, and when I answered no, it got tagged disused:shop=yes.

That is highly misleading (one might even argue it's flat out incorrect), as this issue notes, and the situation wouldn't be any better if it was tagged shop=vacant instead...

I'd much rather if just disused: prefix was prepended to main tag (i.e. amenity, shop, tourism, leisure?), e.g. in this case if it become disused:tourism=guest_house instead of tourism=guest_house . If is probably little more work, but I guess not much so, and for someone with command of Kotlin those maybe dozen lines of code would produce code which would IMHO be much better --- IOW not only more precise (which is always good thing IMHO), but more importantly it wouldn't blatantly lie and misrepresent the situation.

shops that have always been vacant (e.g. newly constructed shops), i.e. never had a tenant

But, if it has always been vacant, then StreetComplete will never change it's tagging anyway (to either shop=vacant or disused:shop=yes), so I don't think it applies to SC use case, right?

it describes the shop space being vacant, i.e. the now, rather than what it was before (disused:*)

Well, it abuses the tag (in many cases). Guest house which is no longer available for rent is hardly "vacant shop space" now.

[matkoniecz]

for disused:tourism=guest_house - this would be also wrong if space would be emptied to the point being generic empty commercial space, rather than being empty, currently unused, guest house

[westnordost]

Alright.

[natrius]

I just would like to add the discussion of https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/welche-fragen-stellt-streetcomplete-wem/114863/ about amenity=school turned to disused:shop=yes to be complete and because nobody else has done so.

Thanks for all your work!