Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Joseph Eisenberg
[Posted to Talk + Tagging]:

Currently the section "Non proposed features" in the OSM wiki page
"Proposal_process" mentions that new tags should not be added to
"Map_Features" without discussion. Some users also believe that new
tags should not be documented under the feature wiki space with
"Key:New_feature" or "Tag:key=value" pages, but should instead be
documented in a User:username/ namespace or the Proposed_features/
namespace.

In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like
suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with
Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting
using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests creating
a new Key: / Tag: page directly, rather than using User:username/ or
Proposed_features/.

Is this a good idea?  Occasionally new wiki pages are created in these
standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the
database.

I would encourage mappers not to create new feature pages for tags
which are not yet in use, or have only been used a handful of times by
one mapper. Instead, it would be good to clarify that the
Proposed_features/ namespace can be used even if the user has no
interest in continuing the proposal process. I though that new feature
pages should be created to document "in use" tags that have been used
by more than a handful of different mappers in more than a handful of
places.

Thoughts?
(You can also respond at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Any_tags_you_like)

- Joseph Eisenberg

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Warin
On 15/08/19 12:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> [Posted to Talk + Tagging]:
>
> Currently the section "Non proposed features" in the OSM wiki page
> "Proposal_process" mentions that new tags should not be added to
> "Map_Features" without discussion. Some users also believe that new
> tags should not be documented under the feature wiki space with
> "Key:New_feature" or "Tag:key=value" pages, but should instead be
> documented in a User:username/ namespace or the Proposed_features/
> namespace.
>
> In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like
> suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with
> Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting
> using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests creating
> a new Key: / Tag: page directly,

This has been the method for a very long time.

>   rather than using User:username/ or
> Proposed_features/.

This is a new method that some think is better.

>
> Is this a good idea?  Occasionally new wiki pages are created in these
> standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the
> database.
>
> I would encourage mappers not to create new feature pages for tags
> which are not yet in use, or have only been used a handful of times by
> one mapper. Instead, it would be good to clarify that the
> Proposed_features/ namespace can be used even if the user has no
> interest in continuing the proposal process. I though that new feature
> pages should be created to document "in use" tags that have been used
> by more than a handful of different mappers in more than a handful of
> places.
>
> Thoughts?

Past practice has been to simple document what you have tagged as a new wiki page. Simple, easy and accessible by all. No matter how little used this is the accepted method and has neen in use for a long time.

Placing it as a proposal and then not proceeding with it sees it being down graded to 'abandoned'. These may be harder to find.

Placing it in User:username/
humm .. will that show up if I search for the key/value?

-------------------------

I am against depreciation the accepted and historic method of documenting new tags.
I would need convincing that the other methods are 'better'.
The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the probability of being cast as 'abandoned'.





_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Joseph Eisenberg
> "accepted and historic method of documenting new tags."
> "No matter how little used this is the accepted method"

Is there evidence or documentation that the accepted and historic
method of documenting new, unused or little-used tags is to create a
Tag:key=value page, without discussion first?

I'm new here, but it looks like back in 2007 to 2008 tags were
discussed and then voted upon and added to Map Features quite
frequently; there were many newly approved tags, before "Any tags you
like" was written - perhaps the later page was a reaction against the
developing proposal process?

> "The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the probability of being cast as 'abandoned'."

Using the proposal namespace should not force the original page author
to do anything else in the Proposal process. Most proposed tags are
never discussed on this list, and never move past "draft" status.

But at some point the tag is clearly abandoned, and it's useful to
mark it as such: the first user stops adding new features, and no more
are added for several years. That's part of the benefit of keeping new
tags in Proposal spaces: it makes it clear that they are not yet "in
use" or "de facto" tags, and may well no longer be actively used by
current mappers. (I don't think such abandoned tag proposal pages
should be deleted, as long as the tag is still in the database, but
the status change is helpful.)

The alternative of putting a new tag page in user namespace could also
be helpful for tags used by one person, if the user doesn't want to
discuss things or have the page changed by others. Wiki editors will
not feel the need to change the page by adding mentions of other tags,
problems with the tag, alternatives, etc, if it's in a personal User
space.

On 8/15/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 15/08/19 12:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> [Posted to Talk + Tagging]:
>>
>> Currently the section "Non proposed features" in the OSM wiki page
>> "Proposal_process" mentions that new tags should not be added to
>> "Map_Features" without discussion. Some users also believe that new
>> tags should not be documented under the feature wiki space with
>> "Key:New_feature" or "Tag:key=value" pages, but should instead be
>> documented in a User:username/ namespace or the Proposed_features/
>> namespace.
>>
>> In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like
>> suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with
>> Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting
>> using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests creating
>> a new Key: / Tag: page directly,
>
> This has been the method for a very long time.
>
>>   rather than using User:username/ or
>> Proposed_features/.
>
> This is a new method that some think is better.
>
>>
>> Is this a good idea?  Occasionally new wiki pages are created in these
>> standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the
>> database.
>>
>> I would encourage mappers not to create new feature pages for tags
>> which are not yet in use, or have only been used a handful of times by
>> one mapper. Instead, it would be good to clarify that the
>> Proposed_features/ namespace can be used even if the user has no
>> interest in continuing the proposal process. I though that new feature
>> pages should be created to document "in use" tags that have been used
>> by more than a handful of different mappers in more than a handful of
>> places.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> Past practice has been to simple document what you have tagged as a new wiki
> page. Simple, easy and accessible by all. No matter how little used this is
> the accepted method and has neen in use for a long time.
>
> Placing it as a proposal and then not proceeding with it sees it being down
> graded to 'abandoned'. These may be harder to find.
>
> Placing it in User:username/
> humm .. will that show up if I search for the key/value?
>
> -------------------------
>
> I am against depreciation the accepted and historic method of documenting
> new tags.
> I would need convincing that the other methods are 'better'.
> The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the
> probability of being cast as 'abandoned'.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Warin
On 15/08/19 13:33, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

>> "accepted and historic method of documenting new tags."
>> "No matter how little used this is the accepted method"
> Is there evidence or documentation that the accepted and historic
> method of documenting new, unused or little-used tags is to create a
> Tag:key=value page, without discussion first?
>
> I'm new here, but it looks like back in 2007 to 2008 tags were
> discussed and then voted upon and added to Map Features quite
> frequently; there were many newly approved tags, before "Any tags you
> like" was written - perhaps the later page was a reaction against the
> developing proposal process?

OSM existed before the 'proposal process' came along.

The accepted method before the proposal process was to document new tags by directly entering them in the wiki.

When the 'proposal process' started there was no change to the practice of document new tags by directly entering them in the wiki.

There has been no suggestion that this method is depreciated, abandoned etc.

>
>> "The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the probability of being cast as 'abandoned'."
> Using the proposal namespace should not force the original page author
> to do anything else in the Proposal process. Most proposed tags are
> never discussed on this list, and never move past "draft" status.

The status can be changed by anyone, not only the page author, I think quite a few proposal status changes to 'abandoned' are by others.
The author has probably lost all faith in the tagging group and moved on.

>
> But at some point the tag is clearly abandoned, and it's useful to
> mark it as such: the first user stops adding new features, and no more
> are added for several years. That's part of the benefit of keeping new
> tags in Proposal spaces: it makes it clear that they are not yet "in
> use" or "de facto" tags, and may well no longer be actively used by
> current mappers. (I don't think such abandoned tag proposal pages
> should be deleted, as long as the tag is still in the database, but
> the status change is helpful.)
>
> The alternative of putting a new tag page in user namespace could also
> be helpful for tags used by one person, if the user doesn't want to
> discuss things or have the page changed by others. Wiki editors will
> not feel the need to change the page by adding mentions of other tags,
> problems with the tag, alternatives, etc, if it's in a personal User
> space.

So it is a 'private' tag .. harder to find, not to be advertised...


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
Hi,

On 15.08.19 04:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like
> suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with
> Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting
> using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests creating
> a new Key: / Tag: page directly, rather than using User:username/ or
> Proposed_features/.
>
> Is this a good idea?  Occasionally new wiki pages are created in these
> standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the
> database.

We have occasionally complained when someone did that, and forcibly
moved their tags to their private space.

(N.B. there used to be a time when we encouraged people to create
private tags of the kind "username:key=value", a practice we have since
stopped.)

(N.B. do you know the watch:username key...?)

> I would encourage mappers not to create new feature pages for tags
> which are not yet in use, or have only been used a handful of times by
> one mapper.

Yes, I think it would be wrong to say it is "generally forbidden" but it
is likely only right in exceptional circumstances. It is one of these
"you can do it but you should be very sure that you're doing the right
thing" kind of things!

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Thursday 15 August 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

>
> In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like
> suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with
> Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting
> using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests
> creating a new Key: / Tag: page directly, rather than using
> User:username/ or Proposed_features/.
>
> Is this a good idea?  Occasionally new wiki pages are created in
> these standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the
> database.

Yes, IMO it is not only acceptable to document newly invented tags but
also advisable to do so.  Note however inventing tags in this context
means actively using them, not theoretical inventions along the lines
of "I would like mappers to tag things this way therefore i document
the tag as if it was being used".  Elaborate tagging schemes should be
discussed before being used and not be invented ad hoc by individual
mappers.

The reason is - as you mentioned - the "Any tags you like" principle.  
It means you can and should invent new tags for *things no tag exists
for so far*.  To allow mappers to determine if there is already an
existing tag for a certain type of feature tags have to be documented.  
Or looking at things the other way round:  If inventing new tags is
encouraged but it is discouraged to document them in a way that can be
easily found by other mappers that would massively emphasize tag
proliferation since mappers will repeatedly invent new and different
tags for certain things because they are unaware that another mapper
has already invented a tag for this.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> On 15. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Is there evidence or documentation that the accepted and historic
> method of documenting new, unused or little-used tags is to create a
> Tag:key=value page, without discussion first?
>
> I'm new here, but it looks like back in 2007 to 2008 tags were
> discussed and then voted upon and added to Map Features quite
> frequently;


from what I recall, while many tags were already used but not really documented, in 2008/09 people would either set up a tag page for tags that were already used(not only by themselves), or write a proposal, or if they set up new pages for tags that weren’t used the other mappers would complain and call it wiki fiddling (also for those who unilaterally changed tag definitions) if it was in the tag definition space and not in their user space.

‘document your tags’ was not intended as setting up a “tag page” for tags that were neither discussed nor proposed nor in significant use.

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

On 15. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

"The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the probability of being cast as 'abandoned'."

Using the proposal namespace should not force the original page author
to do anything else in the Proposal process. Most proposed tags are
never discussed on this list, and never move past "draft" status.


+1, there was a new user (at least new to the wiki, as he hadn’t contributed anything else to the wiki), I think in 2012, who set tens or hundreds of proposals to abandoned for formal reasons (no voting and no modification for some months), some of which might have remained so until now. This included even proposals for tags that had been used hundreds of thousands of times.

For reference:


Cheers Martin 



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg


sent from a phone

> On 15. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> (I don't think such abandoned tag proposal pages
> should be deleted, as long as the tag is still in the database, but
> the status change is helpful.)


I would extend this to all tags that have been at least once in the database in the past, even if they have now vanished, because it helps to understand the history


Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
I agree that they should be documented. It's true that it can be hard
to find proposal page features when searching the wiki, but I find it
hard to find anything with the current search feature (often it's
easier to use taginfo and find the wiki links that way).

There was a suggestion back in March to have proposal pages start with
a Proposal: namespace instead of Proposed_features/ - perhaps this
namespace could be included in wiki searches by default? And taginfo
could take information from the Proposal Page template, in addition to
Description (assuming it doesn't already?).

- Joseph

On 8/15/19, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thursday 15 August 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>> In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like
>> suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with
>> Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting
>> using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests
>> creating a new Key: / Tag: page directly, rather than using
>> User:username/ or Proposed_features/.
>>
>> Is this a good idea?  Occasionally new wiki pages are created in
>> these standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the
>> database.
>
> Yes, IMO it is not only acceptable to document newly invented tags but
> also advisable to do so.  Note however inventing tags in this context
> means actively using them, not theoretical inventions along the lines
> of "I would like mappers to tag things this way therefore i document
> the tag as if it was being used".  Elaborate tagging schemes should be
> discussed before being used and not be invented ad hoc by individual
> mappers.
>
> The reason is - as you mentioned - the "Any tags you like" principle.
> It means you can and should invent new tags for *things no tag exists
> for so far*.  To allow mappers to determine if there is already an
> existing tag for a certain type of feature tags have to be documented.
> Or looking at things the other way round:  If inventing new tags is
> encouraged but it is discouraged to document them in a way that can be
> easily found by other mappers that would massively emphasize tag
> proliferation since mappers will repeatedly invent new and different
> tags for certain things because they are unaware that another mapper
> has already invented a tag for this.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by dieterdreist



15 Aug 2019, 13:33 by [hidden email]:


sent from a phone

On 15. Aug 2019, at 05:33, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
"The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the probability of being cast as 'abandoned'."

Using the proposal namespace should not force the original page author
to do anything else in the Proposal process. Most proposed tags are
never discussed on this list, and never move past "draft" status.


+1, there was a new user (at least new to the wiki, as he hadn’t contributed anything else to the wiki), I think in 2012, who set tens or hundreds of proposals to abandoned for formal reasons (no voting and no modification for some months), some of which might have remained so until now. This included even proposals for tags that had been used hundreds of thousands of times.

For reference:

What is perfectly fine, as long as proposals were actually abandoned.

Is there any popular tag with proposal page set to abandoned state that
does not have box at top directing to tag documentation page?

For many popular tags there are abandoned proposals, tags itself are in active use.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 15. Aug 2019, at 13:53, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> What is perfectly fine, as long as proposals were actually abandoned.


what is your definition of “abandoned” here? E.g. if a page is in draft or proposed status and has not been brought to voting and not been modified for some months or even years, set up by an active mapper, I would expect that you ask the author of the page before you set it to abandoned (even more if you are systematically doing it in a structured way for hundreds of proposals).


Cheers Martin



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3


sent from a phone

> On 15. Aug 2019, at 13:53, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> For many popular tags there are abandoned proposals, tags itself are in active use.


„many popular tags“ have been formally proposed, have not been voted on, and are still in active use, with a significantly different definition? This is not what I experienced in the wiki. When there are proposals and the tags are in active use, then they are usually following the idea of the proposal, regardless of it having been voted on (and not rejected), or not. Which popular tags with abandoned proposals were you thinking about?

Cheers Martin
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Yuri Astrakhan-2
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
I agree with Christoph -- every tag used in OSM data must be documented -- otherwise it has near-zero value.. Actually negative value because it confuses people -- some might want to delete it, but they don't know if it is useful, so they just leave it there almost indefinitely.

In an ideal world (not limited by the current tooling), the person adding a new tag should type in an explanation why they are adding it at the same time it is added.  The tools should also show the user what other similar tags are available (based on the name and the typed in description), in case the user is making a mistake and the needed tag already exists.

If we agree on this vision, lets work on achieving that -- we can discuss implementation details, and I will be happy to participate in that.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 7:23 AM Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thursday 15 August 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like
> suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with
> Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting
> using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests
> creating a new Key: / Tag: page directly, rather than using
> User:username/ or Proposed_features/.
>
> Is this a good idea?  Occasionally new wiki pages are created in
> these standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the
> database.

Yes, IMO it is not only acceptable to document newly invented tags but
also advisable to do so.  Note however inventing tags in this context
means actively using them, not theoretical inventions along the lines
of "I would like mappers to tag things this way therefore i document
the tag as if it was being used".  Elaborate tagging schemes should be
discussed before being used and not be invented ad hoc by individual
mappers.

The reason is - as you mentioned - the "Any tags you like" principle. 
It means you can and should invent new tags for *things no tag exists
for so far*.  To allow mappers to determine if there is already an
existing tag for a certain type of feature tags have to be documented. 
Or looking at things the other way round:  If inventing new tags is
encouraged but it is discouraged to document them in a way that can be
easily found by other mappers that would massively emphasize tag
proliferation since mappers will repeatedly invent new and different
tags for certain things because they are unaware that another mapper
has already invented a tag for this.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by dieterdreist



15 Aug 2019, 15:56 by [hidden email]:


sent from a phone
On 15. Aug 2019, at 13:53, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

For many popular tags there are abandoned proposals, tags itself are in active use.


„many popular tags“ have been formally proposed, have not been voted on, and are still in active use
Yes,
, with a significantly different definition?
With this restriction added, there still some but I would need to look for them

Which popular tags with abandoned proposals were you thinking about?
With or without additional requirement that you added? There certainly
some where definition/use is different and probably some where definition/use
is significantly different.


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by dieterdreist



15 Aug 2019, 15:48 by [hidden email]:


sent from a phone
On 15. Aug 2019, at 13:53, Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:

What is perfectly fine, as long as proposals were actually abandoned.


what is your definition of “abandoned” here? E.g. if a page is in draft or proposed status and has not been brought to voting and not been modified for some months or even years, set up by an active mapper, I would expect that you ask the author of the page before you set it to abandoned (even more if you are systematically doing it in a structured way for hundreds of proposals).
Page without real modification for more than year or explicit message from author declaring
proposal as abandoned?

I think it is fine to set it page to abandoned status without consulting author, it is easy
to revert this though in future I will consider doing this.

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg

The problem about proposal pages is that they can be infinitely
theoretical, non-verifiable or outright insane.  So telling a mapper
who is thinking about inventing a new tag to search the proposals if
there is one that already covers what they want to do is not
practicable.  Because even if there is a proposal that deals with the
same kind of situation the mapper is confronted with that does not mean
the proposal contains a practicable idea of how to tag this.

The advisable approach to making tag documentation on the wiki better
usable is IMO not to further blur the line between documentation of the
de facto meaning of tags by humans and all the other uses of the wiki
(like proposals, automatically assembled data etc.) but more strictly
separating them.  If you (theoretically - it would probably be a lot of
work to do this practically) take all tagging documentation from the
wiki no matter where it is and remove everything that is not strictly
documenting the de facto meaning of tags in the OSM database the result
would be a pretty compact body of documentation.

--
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Joseph Eisenberg
> " it would probably be a lot of work to do this practically"

That's never stopped me before! :-)

> Take all tagging documentation from the wiki no matter where it is and remove everything that is not strictly documenting the de facto meaning of tags in the OSM database the result
would be a pretty compact body of documentation.

Are you suggesting making Tag: or Key: pages for all of the proposed
tags/keys which are being used? That sounds like a lot of work.

Wouldn't it be easier to mark crazy/theoretical/bad/abandoned
proposals as "abandoned" and archive them, and then make it easier to
search the wiki, including all the proposed features, rather than
moving them all to a different wiki namespace?

Or perhaps you are suggesting going through the current Tag: and Key:
pages and removing all of the non-factual information, including some
pages which are opinion or recommendations.

While this would make a few of the pages shorter, it wouldn't
significantly reduce the number of pages or the number of tags and
keys documented in the wiki. Just the Map Features page alone, which
is only a small subset of the documented tags and keys, is quite
lengthy at the moment, and it's just descriptions of each approved or
de facto tag (plus a few others that are in use)

On 8/16/19, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The problem about proposal pages is that they can be infinitely
> theoretical, non-verifiable or outright insane.  So telling a mapper
> who is thinking about inventing a new tag to search the proposals if
> there is one that already covers what they want to do is not
> practicable.  Because even if there is a proposal that deals with the
> same kind of situation the mapper is confronted with that does not mean
> the proposal contains a practicable idea of how to tag this.
>
> The advisable approach to making tag documentation on the wiki better
> usable is IMO not to further blur the line between documentation of the
> de facto meaning of tags by humans and all the other uses of the wiki
> (like proposals, automatically assembled data etc.) but more strictly
> separating them.  If you (theoretically - it would probably be a lot of
> work to do this practically) take all tagging documentation from the
> wiki no matter where it is and remove everything that is not strictly
> documenting the de facto meaning of tags in the OSM database the result
> would be a pretty compact body of documentation.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Joseph Eisenberg
While some have suggested that uses of the landuse=* key like
landuse=grass, landuse=village_green and landuse=recreation_area lead
to misuse of the landuse=* key, the landcover=* key appears to be even
more problematic.

A newer user, Henke54, has continued to create new pages like
Tag:landcover=dunes -
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (instead of
Tag:natural=dune), Tag:landcover=water (instead of natural=water),
Tag:landcover=hedge (instead of barrier=hedge) and
Tag:landcover=greenery (meant for all types of vegetation? Or
shrubberies? Flower beds?) in the Tag: space.

I think this shows that the concept of "landcover" is not clear even
among users who promote this key over the established keys for
vegetation and landform features (eg natural=*).

What should we do with a page like Tag:landcover=dunes? I already
tried adding a mention that natural=dune was more common and mentioned
on the Talk page that "dune" is a landform, not a landcover, but this
was reverted.

On 8/16/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> " it would probably be a lot of work to do this practically"
>
> That's never stopped me before! :-)
>
>> Take all tagging documentation from the wiki no matter where it is and
>> remove everything that is not strictly documenting the de facto meaning of
>> tags in the OSM database the result
> would be a pretty compact body of documentation.
>
> Are you suggesting making Tag: or Key: pages for all of the proposed
> tags/keys which are being used? That sounds like a lot of work.
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to mark crazy/theoretical/bad/abandoned
> proposals as "abandoned" and archive them, and then make it easier to
> search the wiki, including all the proposed features, rather than
> moving them all to a different wiki namespace?
>
> Or perhaps you are suggesting going through the current Tag: and Key:
> pages and removing all of the non-factual information, including some
> pages which are opinion or recommendations.
>
> While this would make a few of the pages shorter, it wouldn't
> significantly reduce the number of pages or the number of tags and
> keys documented in the wiki. Just the Map Features page alone, which
> is only a small subset of the documented tags and keys, is quite
> lengthy at the moment, and it's just descriptions of each approved or
> de facto tag (plus a few others that are in use)
>
> On 8/16/19, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> The problem about proposal pages is that they can be infinitely
>> theoretical, non-verifiable or outright insane.  So telling a mapper
>> who is thinking about inventing a new tag to search the proposals if
>> there is one that already covers what they want to do is not
>> practicable.  Because even if there is a proposal that deals with the
>> same kind of situation the mapper is confronted with that does not mean
>> the proposal contains a practicable idea of how to tag this.
>>
>> The advisable approach to making tag documentation on the wiki better
>> usable is IMO not to further blur the line between documentation of the
>> de facto meaning of tags by humans and all the other uses of the wiki
>> (like proposals, automatically assembled data etc.) but more strictly
>> separating them.  If you (theoretically - it would probably be a lot of
>> work to do this practically) take all tagging documentation from the
>> wiki no matter where it is and remove everything that is not strictly
>> documenting the de facto meaning of tags in the OSM database the result
>> would be a pretty compact body of documentation.
>>
>> --
>> Christoph Hormann
>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [OSM-talk] Document personal tags in Proposed_features/ space, User: space, or Tag:/Key: space?

Peter Elderson
Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>:
>
> While some have suggested that uses of the landuse=* key like
> landuse=grass, landuse=village_green and landuse=recreation_area lead
> to misuse of the landuse=* key, the landcover=* key appears to be even
> more problematic.

The problem is one particular user. The concept of landcover is very clear. Landuse, not so much.

> A newer user, Henke54, has continued to create new pages like
> Tag:landcover=dunes -
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landcover%3Ddunes (instead of
> Tag:natural=dune), Tag:landcover=water (instead of natural=water),
> Tag:landcover=hedge (instead of barrier=hedge) and
> Tag:landcover=greenery (meant for all types of vegetation? Or
> shrubberies? Flower beds?) in the Tag: space.
>
> I think this shows that the concept of "landcover" is not clear even
> among users who promote this key over the established keys for
> vegetation and landform features (eg natural=*).

It shows this particular user has a problem. I would not say he is ‘among users who promote this key, he’s one user who abuses this and other keys and does not like to be corrected.

> What should we do with a page like Tag:landcover=dunes? I already
> tried adding a mention that natural=dune was more common and mentioned
> on the Talk page that "dune" is a landform, not a landcover, but this
> was reverted.

There you have it.


> On 8/16/19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> " it would probably be a lot of work to do this practically"
>>
>> That's never stopped me before! :-)
>>
>>> Take all tagging documentation from the wiki no matter where it is and
>>> remove everything that is not strictly documenting the de facto meaning of
>>> tags in the OSM database the result
>> would be a pretty compact body of documentation.
>>
>> Are you suggesting making Tag: or Key: pages for all of the proposed
>> tags/keys which are being used? That sounds like a lot of work.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be easier to mark crazy/theoretical/bad/abandoned
>> proposals as "abandoned" and archive them, and then make it easier to
>> search the wiki, including all the proposed features, rather than
>> moving them all to a different wiki namespace?
>>
>> Or perhaps you are suggesting going through the current Tag: and Key:
>> pages and removing all of the non-factual information, including some
>> pages which are opinion or recommendations.
>>
>> While this would make a few of the pages shorter, it wouldn't
>> significantly reduce the number of pages or the number of tags and
>> keys documented in the wiki. Just the Map Features page alone, which
>> is only a small subset of the documented tags and keys, is quite
>> lengthy at the moment, and it's just descriptions of each approved or
>> de facto tag (plus a few others that are in use)
>>
>>> On 8/16/19, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem about proposal pages is that they can be infinitely
>>> theoretical, non-verifiable or outright insane.  So telling a mapper
>>> who is thinking about inventing a new tag to search the proposals if
>>> there is one that already covers what they want to do is not
>>> practicable.  Because even if there is a proposal that deals with the
>>> same kind of situation the mapper is confronted with that does not mean
>>> the proposal contains a practicable idea of how to tag this.
>>>
>>> The advisable approach to making tag documentation on the wiki better
>>> usable is IMO not to further blur the line between documentation of the
>>> de facto meaning of tags by humans and all the other uses of the wiki
>>> (like proposals, automatically assembled data etc.) but more strictly
>>> separating them.  If you (theoretically - it would probably be a lot of
>>> work to do this practically) take all tagging documentation from the
>>> wiki no matter where it is and remove everything that is not strictly
>>> documenting the de facto meaning of tags in the OSM database the result
>>> would be a pretty compact body of documentation.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Christoph Hormann
>>> http://www.imagico.de/
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12