|
Greetings fellow OSM contributors, I am trying to figure out how to tag a nordic ski resort that has permanently closed (owner has retired, no longer maintains trails, and no longer allows use of the former nordic trails). The ski resort itself is an area tagged as tourism=attraction (instead of the more correct landuse=winter_sports). My inclination is to delete this area rather than use some combination of disused:, abandoned:, and/or access=no|private as in my mind the area is more about the going concern of the resort rather than inherent to the physical features of the land. However, that's just my opinion and I welcome yours. For the pistes, my inclination is more to leave them mapped and then tag them as some combination of access=no|private in combination with either disused: and/or abandoned. However, i could use some advice on which combination. Is it abandoned=yes because it's a feature of the landscape? Or abandoned:piste:type=noridc? Your advice will be most helpful. Thanks, spc |
|
Nordic pistes exist typically only as a result of them being groomed so I would delete them (any ways that they might follow should naturally be left intact). And the same for the area, lifecycle tags make sense when there's a physical object that doesn't exist anymore or is unusable, but I suspect that that is unlikely in this case. |
|
Same as Simon, or you can use a life cycle prefix if you feel nostalgic. If the trails are still used by a lot of users, piste:grooming = backcountry may describe this informal use. |
