New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

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

New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Joseph Eisenberg
Please take a minute to review the new page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status

I've made this page, based on the existing list of definitions for the
values of the "status" field in the ValueDescription and
KeyDescription boxes - that's the word "approved", "rejected", "de
facto", "in use" etc which is found in the box on each wiki page.

The top of the page is just copied and pasted from the existing list,
but I've then categorized and further explained the values, especially
de facto, approved and in use, as well as the
rejected/deprecated/obsolete tags. Here are the categories:

1) "Green Light" (recommend)
- approved
- de facto tags
accepted and supported by the community, and the majority of features
in the database have these tags. Usually in Map Features and supported
by editors, database users.

2) "Red Light" (not recommended)
- abandoned
- deprecated
- discardable
- obsolete
Usually not found on the list of Map Features, not recommended or supported

3) "In use" status (variable)
- wide range of meaning; less recommended than approved and de facto
tags, but may still be the best existing tag for a feature. Small
percentage have been added to Map Features.
- Currently being added to new features by mappers, but have not been approved.

4) Proposal process values:
- draft
- proposed
- voting
Currently in the proposal stage. These tags may soon be approved, or
the proposal may be abandoned or rejected.

5) Other values
Some tags do not qualify for any of the statuses above: the tags below
have not been approved or rejected, are not commonly being used by
mappers, but do have a wiki page and have some examples in the
database.

Values include inactive, unspecified, undefined, unknown or  (empty)

Comments, improvements?

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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

On 27. Jul 2019, at 16:19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:

Please take a minute to review the new page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status


thank you for taking on this, good work. 

Allow me one remark for deprecated and obsolete. Currently it reads:

this could be less absolute and maybe include reference to the process, something like “tags which are discouraged by an approved proposal”

Those tags that are discouraged because of a more established tagging alternative but not through voting would be “obsolete”, right? On the other hand for obsolete tags there is the requirement of “unapproved”, which probably leads to all obsolete approved tags going to deprecated status. Then to cover the formerly approved tags which haven’t been voted on their deprecation (other than by their “feet”), but are now considered deprecated, we should not require a vote on deprecation.

“deprecated tags whose usage is commonly or by voting discouraged”
or
“deprecated tags whose usage is discouraged because of the tag usage history or as the result of voting“ 
or even shorter, given that there are more verbose explanations below:
“deprecated tags whose usage is discouraged”



Cheers Martin 



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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Joseph Eisenberg
Good point about "deprecated" and "obsolete".

The status "deprecated" is much more common; it's been used 115 times
and has a well-used list:

But "obsolete" is only used 6 times, and seems to mean the same thing
as "deprecated". Perhaps we can just edit these 6 features and remove
the status to simplify things?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22

Also, I've also only been able to find one wiki page with
status=discardable - Tag:odbl=clean - so I think we can just change
this tag status to "deprecated" and remove the special status for this
one tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22discardable%22

Re: when to mark a tag as deprecated:

Ideally there should be a proposal approved which clearly states that
a certain tag will be deprecated and another tag approved, but there
appear to be a number of tags that are marked as "deprecated" due to
some discussion but not a full vote.

In other cases it appears that deprecation was intended (eg
amenity=embassy), but the tag is still commonly used and supported
since the proposal was just approved.

Perhaps there should be a wiki page created that described the process
for deprecating a tag and when to change the status?

Joseph

On 7/28/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> On 27. Jul 2019, at 16:19, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>> Please take a minute to review the new page
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status
>
> Allow me one remark for deprecated and obsolete. Currently it reads:
> “
> deprecated: deprecated tags that will not be used anymore”
>
> this could be less absolute and maybe include reference to the process,
> something like “tags which are discouraged by an approved proposal”
>
> Those tags that are discouraged because of a more established tagging
> alternative but not through voting would be “obsolete”, right? On the other
> hand for obsolete tags there is the requirement of “unapproved”, which
> probably leads to all obsolete approved tags going to deprecated status.
> Then to cover the formerly approved tags which haven’t been voted on their
> deprecation (other than by their “feet”), but are now considered deprecated,
> we should not require a vote on deprecation.
>
> “deprecated tags whose usage is commonly or by voting discouraged”
> or
> “deprecated tags whose usage is discouraged because of the tag usage history
> or as the result of voting“
> or even shorter, given that there are more verbose explanations below:
> “deprecated tags whose usage is discouraged”
>
>
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
>

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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2019, at 10:03, Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> But "obsolete" is only used 6 times, and seems to mean the same thing
> as "deprecated". Perhaps we can just edit these 6 features and remove
> the status to simplify things?
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22
>



+1, the differences seem minor, probably not worth the fragmentation



> Also, I've also only been able to find one wiki page with
> status=discardable - Tag:odbl=clean - so I think we can just change
> this tag status to "deprecated" and remove the special status for this
> one tag? https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22discardable%22


here I see more profound differences in meaning: a discardable tag is completely useless (currently) and you should remove it when you are touching such an object. Deprecated tags on the other hand are just an alternative way to say something (they might have problems, eg ambiguity as in landuse=farm), but the tag has some meaning (should not be removed from an object without verifying there are other tags that convey the meaning).



>
> Re: when to mark a tag as deprecated:
>
> Ideally there should be a proposal approved which clearly states that
> a certain tag will be deprecated and another tag approved, but there
> appear to be a number of tags that are marked as "deprecated" due to
> some discussion but not a full vote.
>
> In other cases it appears that deprecation was intended (eg
> amenity=embassy), but the tag is still commonly used and supported
> since the proposal was just approved.
>
> Perhaps there should be a wiki page created that described the process
> for deprecating a tag and when to change the status?


I guess there may be different opinions how and when a tag becomes deprecated, a wiki page would help to gather information and consolidate on an agreed meaning/process.

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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Christoph Hormann-2
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Saturday 27 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Please take a minute to review the new page
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status
>
> [...]

A bit of a general remark here - the OSM wiki has for quite some time
been torn between being an attempt to document the established mapping
practice (i.e. what tags actually mean based on how they are used) and
being a way to tell mappers what tags are supposed to mean in the
opinion of those editing the wiki.

The way you present this status concept is in support of the latter - in
particular your use of the term "recommended" on status values that do
not represent a formal proposal status (that
is 'draft', 'proposed', 'voting', 'approved' and 'rejected') ultimately
means recommended by those who have dominance over editing the wiki.

You should keep in mind that this whole concept of meta-classification
of tags into a set of classes - as attractive as it might be to allow a
simplistic understanding of tagging in OSM and management of the
complexity of tagging by a small group of people on the wiki - is going
to inevitably fail because it tries to trivialize the complexity of the
geography (which we try to document in tagging) and the social
dimension of very different people looking at this geography from
different sides.  The only way to properly document the status of a tag
is IMO through a verbalized description - which is the essence of what
tag documentation on the wiki traditionally was centered around.

Also keep in mind that most of concept this idea of tag 'status' is
based on massively discriminating against languages other than English.  
For the proposal process this is obvious but this also applies to many
of the other ideas of status.  In contrast to the verbalized
documentation of tags - which can exist in any language or set of
languages independent of each others the idea of a tag status is that
of a single status defined by authority over the global OSM community.

--
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: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Eugene Alvin Villar
In reply to this post by Joseph Eisenberg
On Sat, Jul 27, 2019 at 10:20 PM Joseph Eisenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please take a minute to review the new page
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status

Overall, this looks pretty good! I am in favor of documenting the status of tags and this wiki page is a good start to explain what those statuses mean. Mappers may quibble about the exact or specific meanings of particular values, but at least this wiki page provides a central place to collect such discussions (via the talk page) instead of or in addition to this mailing list.


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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

dieterdreist
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2


sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2019, at 11:12, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> ultimately
> means recommended by those who have dominance over editing the wiki


who are they? Everybody can modify the wiki (and indeed from my experience the wiki is more the sum of many individual, punctual and sometimes even disconnected edits and additions, than it is the result of an orchestrated effort by a small group of self-elected dominators). When there are disputes about edits they are usually brought to discussion on the mailing lists and “forums”, and if you decide not to participate in any of this, you will have to live with what the others do (not speaking about you, Christoph, personally). Joseph didn’t introduce the tag status concept, he is only trying to improve the documentation and find the common understanding of what these “statuses” mean and how they are assigned, which should make it easier for newcomers to engage in the discussions about topics they care for.

> In contrast to the verbalized
> documentation of tags - which can exist in any language or set of
> languages independent of each others the idea of a tag status is that
> of a single status defined by authority over the global OSM community.



I believe it is desirable to have a single status and meaning for a tag. The project scope is global and there is no need to re-use the same tag for a different meaning or insist on deprecation of a tag that is significantly used in some other areas and works for those who use it. Just use a different or additional tag for your specific meaning. Ultimately it isn’t a huge issue if occasionally different tags are used for the same or very similar feature class or property, but it is an issue if the same tag is defined differently in different languages. This does not exclude that the same tag may have a specific meaning just for an explicitly defined area (e.g. uk crossing shortcuts), or that it could not shift with the time.

Cheers Martin


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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
Correction: obsolete is only used 6 times with tags and 0 keys at the
moment, but "discardable" is also used with 7 keys in addition to 1
tag, so that's 8 times.

The "discardable" status is clearly different from "deprecated" as you
mentioned.

>> Perhaps there should be a wiki page created that described the process
>> for deprecating a tag and when to change the status?
>
> I guess there may be different opinions how and when a tag becomes
> deprecated, a wiki page would help to gather information and consolidate on
> an agreed meaning/process.

It would be good to get some ideas about how to describe the correct
way to deprecate a feature.

I remember it was hard to figure out how to add a new item to the
Deprecated Features page (camp_site=camp_pitch in my case), and there
wasn't in mention in the Proposal Process page.

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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by dieterdreist
I think Christoph brings up a very good point.

If I understand correctly, he wasn't accusing the new page of saying
"this is the right way to use statuses", since it just describes and
explains how the current "status" feature is currently used.

But rather, he was saying that by just describing the current way that
the wiki is used, it perpetuates the current system that is
systemically tilted toward English-speaking, privileged Westerners
such as ourselves.

While in theory anyone can edit the wiki or join the Tagging group,
there are in practice only a few hundred people who do either, out of
the many thousands of mappers and many millions of users, and those of
use who contribute here and on the wiki are mainly Europeans (plus
their old colonialists from America, Australia etc) who read and write
English fluently.

I live in Papua, Indonesia, but I'm well aware that my background and
preconceptions and values are very different those of most Papuans and
other Indonesians.

Christoph, do you have any ideas about how we could be more inclusive
and make it easier for mappers from other countries to create and
document new tags?

I hoped that by better defining the "de facto" status and defining a
clear way that a tag can be promoted to this value (which currently is
honored with a green highlighting, just like "approved"), there could
be an objective and fair way for "in use" tags to be added to Map
Features without going through the Proposal process.

This would allow, say, and Indonesian mapper to start using
"amenity=motorcycle_taxi" for Ojek stands
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_taxi) or even "amenity=ojek"
- and if the gained enough popularity and met the criteria it could be
given status=defacto and added to Map Features without having a
proposal.

I'd say this should happen even when the tag isn't really in British
English, if it's been organically accepted by mappers - for example,
we use amenity=bureau_de_change instead of amenity=currency_exchange
or =money_changer

But I also see a benefit to not allowing just any tag to be added to
Map Features without discussion, especially if they are not commonly
used, don't have a clear definition, aren't verifiable by ordinary
mappers, etc.

Joseph

On 7/28/19, Martin Koppenhoefer <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> sent from a phone
>
>> On 28. Jul 2019, at 11:12, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> ultimately
>> means recommended by those who have dominance over editing the wiki
>
>
> who are they? Everybody can modify the wiki (and indeed from my experience
> the wiki is more the sum of many individual, punctual and sometimes even
> disconnected edits and additions, than it is the result of an orchestrated
> effort by a small group of self-elected dominators). When there are disputes
> about edits they are usually brought to discussion on the mailing lists and
> “forums”, and if you decide not to participate in any of this, you will have
> to live with what the others do (not speaking about you, Christoph,
> personally). Joseph didn’t introduce the tag status concept, he is only
> trying to improve the documentation and find the common understanding of
> what these “statuses” mean and how they are assigned, which should make it
> easier for newcomers to engage in the discussions about topics they care
> for.
>
>> In contrast to the verbalized
>> documentation of tags - which can exist in any language or set of
>> languages independent of each others the idea of a tag status is that
>> of a single status defined by authority over the global OSM community.
>
>
>
> I believe it is desirable to have a single status and meaning for a tag. The
> project scope is global and there is no need to re-use the same tag for a
> different meaning or insist on deprecation of a tag that is significantly
> used in some other areas and works for those who use it. Just use a
> different or additional tag for your specific meaning. Ultimately it isn’t a
> huge issue if occasionally different tags are used for the same or very
> similar feature class or property, but it is an issue if the same tag is
> defined differently in different languages. This does not exclude that the
> same tag may have a specific meaning just for an explicitly defined area
> (e.g. uk crossing shortcuts), or that it could not shift with the time.
>
> Cheers Martin
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Christoph Hormann-2
On Sunday 28 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
> Christoph, do you have any ideas about how we could be more inclusive
> and make it easier for mappers from other countries to create and
> document new tags?

I think emphasizing and reaffirming the fact that the wiki is to
document the de facto use and meaning of tags and openly documenting
and explaining contradictions, ambiguities and regional differences in
tagging rather than hiding them to present a subjectively desired
reality of tagging would be a good approach.

If the wiki documents the de facto use and meaning of tags that would
automatically give different language versions of the documentation
equal standing because all of them aim to document the same thing.  If
however the wiki aims to document the supposed meaning of tags there
will inevitably be a struggle for opinion leadership on what this
supposed meaning is to be and this struggle will inevitably be
dominated by the English language.

What i specifically think is not a good idea is intermixing the formal
status of a proposal in the proposal process
('draft', 'proposed', 'voting', 'approved' and 'rejected') with either
objective and verifiable classifications of the actual use of tags and
subjective recommendations if a certain tag should or should not be
used.

> I hoped that by better defining the "de facto" status and defining a
> clear way that a tag can be promoted to this value (which currently
> is honored with a green highlighting, just like "approved"), there
> could be an objective and fair way for "in use" tags to be added to
> Map Features without going through the Proposal process.

I don't think there is a reasonable verifiable way to define a
sub-classification among tags that are widely accepted to be used with
a certain meaning but that have never successfully gone through a
proposal process.  If there was a way to do this it would probably be
possible to automatically determine this and show such status in
taginfo (although if that involves the historic development that might
be technically challenging).

--
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: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

dieterdreist


sent from a phone

> On 28. Jul 2019, at 15:37, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I don't think there is a reasonable verifiable way to define a
> sub-classification among tags that are widely accepted to be used with
> a certain meaning but that have never successfully gone through a
> proposal process.


I also don’t think it would be useful or needed. What should be possible is distinguishing these widely accepted and established tags you mention from those tags that are not widely known and used, but are documented nonetheless and there is some few usage.


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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Joseph Eisenberg
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
I don't think it would be easy to automate.

My impression is that the "de facto" status tags and keys area usually:

1) In use for a long time.

Most are been around since 2008 or sooner, but at least for several
years if newer. This requires checking http://taghistory.raifer.tech
or old database extracts, or having personal knowledge of the
situation.

2) Are used for a large percentage of all the real world features of
that type, or have high and growing usage.

This requires knowing that 5 oceans, 7 continents, or 220 countries is
100 percent, but 500 tree stumps is not very much. I don't think
computers are so good at this.

3) Are not debatable or in conflict with a synonymous tag

This requires knowing what other tags mean the same thing or nearly
the same thing, and checking the Talk page and old forum or Tagging
mailing list archives and old draft proposals to see if any serious
problems came up.

4) Have a clear definition and reasonably complete wiki documentation

This is pretty easy for a human to check, but not so easy for a computer.

(And the prerequisite is that there wasn't an approved proposal in the
past, which also requires searching the archives; otherwise it should
be "approve" )

I think these 4 criteria are fairly objective, but not something that
can be determined by a simple algorithm.

If they are not met, the tag is probably "in use" if it's being
currently added by mappers this year.

Tags that meet all 4 criteria are probably as good as the average "Approved" tag

- Joseph

On 7/28/19, Christoph Hormann <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sunday 28 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>
>> Christoph, do you have any ideas about how we could be more inclusive
>> and make it easier for mappers from other countries to create and
>> document new tags?
>
> I think emphasizing and reaffirming the fact that the wiki is to
> document the de facto use and meaning of tags and openly documenting
> and explaining contradictions, ambiguities and regional differences in
> tagging rather than hiding them to present a subjectively desired
> reality of tagging would be a good approach.
>
> If the wiki documents the de facto use and meaning of tags that would
> automatically give different language versions of the documentation
> equal standing because all of them aim to document the same thing.  If
> however the wiki aims to document the supposed meaning of tags there
> will inevitably be a struggle for opinion leadership on what this
> supposed meaning is to be and this struggle will inevitably be
> dominated by the English language.
>
> What i specifically think is not a good idea is intermixing the formal
> status of a proposal in the proposal process
> ('draft', 'proposed', 'voting', 'approved' and 'rejected') with either
> objective and verifiable classifications of the actual use of tags and
> subjective recommendations if a certain tag should or should not be
> used.
>
>> I hoped that by better defining the "de facto" status and defining a
>> clear way that a tag can be promoted to this value (which currently
>> is honored with a green highlighting, just like "approved"), there
>> could be an objective and fair way for "in use" tags to be added to
>> Map Features without going through the Proposal process.
>
> I don't think there is a reasonable verifiable way to define a
> sub-classification among tags that are widely accepted to be used with
> a certain meaning but that have never successfully gone through a
> proposal process.  If there was a way to do this it would probably be
> possible to automatically determine this and show such status in
> taginfo (although if that involves the historic development that might
> be technically challenging).
>
> --
> 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: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Christoph Hormann-2

There are many tags with status 'de facto' indicated that do not meet at
least some of your criteria:

landuse=meadow
landuse=forest
natural=wood
place=square
waterway=drain

and there are tags with status 'in use' indicated that at least meet
some of the criteria:

highway=turning_circle
information=guidepost
landuse=grass
man_made=cutline
place=archipelago
water=lake
waterway=riverbank

IMO if those criteria are significant (which i don't doubt as far as
they can be objectively determined) it is much more useful to document
how far a tag meets these criteria individually than to determine an
aggregate score of some sort from them and a categorization based on
that.

--
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: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Mateusz Konieczny-3



28 Jul 2019, 18:33 by [hidden email]:

IMO if those criteria are significant (which i don't doubt as far as
they can be objectively determined) it is much more useful to document
how far a tag meets these criteria individually than to determine an
aggregate score of some sort from them and a categorization based on
that.


The longer that I look at it the more I suspect that clasiffying "de facto" vs "in use" is
not very useful.

-- signed, person who made many edits on Wiki changing "de facto" to "in use" or reverse


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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Christoph Hormann-2
28 Jul 2019, 11:12 by [hidden email]:
On Saturday 27 July 2019, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Please take a minute to review the new page
Thanks for creating it and submitting it for a review!
A bit of a general remark here - the OSM wiki has for quite some time
been torn between being an attempt to document the established mapping
practice (i.e. what tags actually mean based on how they are used) and
being a way to tell mappers what tags are supposed to mean in the
opinion of those editing the wiki.
I edited Deprecated features page to be more explicit that
wiki editors are documenting tagging situations, rather than ordering mappers
and developers how this should be used

See
for my changes, feedback is welcomed.
The way you present this status concept is in support of the latter - in
particular your use of the term "recommended" on status values that do
not represent a formal proposal status (that
is 'draft', 'proposed', 'voting', 'approved' and 'rejected') ultimately
means recommended by those who have dominance over editing the wiki.
I made some small changes, see


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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Joseph Eisenberg
I've edited the page:

1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny just
made, for better English style.

2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are
"recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not
recommended".

I also removed the suggestion that "de facto" tags are supported by
rendering / routing / editing software - while this is usually true,
it isn't what determines if a tag is given "de facto" status.

3) I removed "obsolete" status from the list with deprecated/discouraged.

However, I now think I figured out what this status is supposed to
mean: it's supposed to be used for tags that were deprecated, but now
no longer even appear in the database, so the wiki page is only for
historical information.

Do we really need a special status for this, or should is it ok if I
retag the 6 tags with this status to "deprecated"?

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22

- Tag:abandoned=yes - recommended replacement abandoned:*=* - used 34,000 times
- Tag:amenity=Kneippbecken - approved replacement is
amenity=kneipp_water_cure - used 0 times
- Tag:man_made=power_hydro / Tag:man_made=power_nuclear /
Tag:man_made=power_wind - use  power=generator, generator:source=*
instead - used a couple of times only.
- Tag:denotation=cluster - for special trees. Recommend to use name=*
instead with natural=tree. Had been down to 0 uses at one point, but
now there are a few hundred?

So only amenity=Kneippbecken and man_made=power_* really fit the
"obsolete" status, though there are a number of tags currently with
"deprecated" that are also no longer found in the database.

Joseph

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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Warin
On 29/07/19 15:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> I've edited the page:
>
> 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny just
> made, for better English style.
>
> 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are
> "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not
> recommended".
>
> I also removed the suggestion that "de facto" tags are supported by
> rendering / routing / editing software - while this is usually true,
> it isn't what determines if a tag is given "de facto" status.
>
> 3) I removed "obsolete" status from the list with deprecated/discouraged.
>
> However, I now think I figured out what this status is supposed to
> mean: it's supposed to be used for tags that were deprecated, but now
> no longer even appear in the database, so the wiki page is only for
> historical information.
>
> Do we really need a special status for this, or should is it ok if I
> retag the 6 tags with this status to "deprecated"?
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22
>
> - Tag:abandoned=yes - recommended replacement abandoned:*=* - used 34,000 times
> - Tag:amenity=Kneippbecken - approved replacement is
> amenity=kneipp_water_cure - used 0 times
> - Tag:man_made=power_hydro / Tag:man_made=power_nuclear /
> Tag:man_made=power_wind - use  power=generator, generator:source=*
> instead - used a couple of times only.
> - Tag:denotation=cluster - for special trees. Recommend to use name=*
> instead with natural=tree. Had been down to 0 uses at one point, but
> now there are a few hundred?

Gah! use name=* for something other than the name? No. Use the description key for that.
Edited wiki to remove this suggestion.

>
> So only amenity=Kneippbecken and man_made=power_* really fit the
> "obsolete" status, though there are a number of tags currently with
> "deprecated" that are also no longer found in the database.
>
Once something has been 'depreciated' but now has little to no presence then 'obsolete' is a good status for it.


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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Joseph Eisenberg
(Not sent to tagging list)

I think the idea was that a tree with a proper name is an important /
landmark tree?

Perhaps you crazy Europeans name your special trees, eg King George's Oak?

The other suggestion was to use "landmark=yes" but this key is also
not recommended. Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is
actually used now days.

Joseph

On 7/29/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 29/07/19 15:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>> I've edited the page:
>>
>> 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny just
>> made, for better English style.
>>
>> 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are
>> "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not
>> recommended".
>>
>> I also removed the suggestion that "de facto" tags are supported by
>> rendering / routing / editing software - while this is usually true,
>> it isn't what determines if a tag is given "de facto" status.
>>
>> 3) I removed "obsolete" status from the list with deprecated/discouraged.
>>
>> However, I now think I figured out what this status is supposed to
>> mean: it's supposed to be used for tags that were deprecated, but now
>> no longer even appear in the database, so the wiki page is only for
>> historical information.
>>
>> Do we really need a special status for this, or should is it ok if I
>> retag the 6 tags with this status to "deprecated"?
>>
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22
>>
>> - Tag:abandoned=yes - recommended replacement abandoned:*=* - used 34,000
>> times
>> - Tag:amenity=Kneippbecken - approved replacement is
>> amenity=kneipp_water_cure - used 0 times
>> - Tag:man_made=power_hydro / Tag:man_made=power_nuclear /
>> Tag:man_made=power_wind - use  power=generator, generator:source=*
>> instead - used a couple of times only.
>> - Tag:denotation=cluster - for special trees. Recommend to use name=*
>> instead with natural=tree. Had been down to 0 uses at one point, but
>> now there are a few hundred?
>
> Gah! use name=* for something other than the name? No. Use the description
> key for that.
> Edited wiki to remove this suggestion.
>
>>
>> So only amenity=Kneippbecken and man_made=power_* really fit the
>> "obsolete" status, though there are a number of tags currently with
>> "deprecated" that are also no longer found in the database.
>>
> Once something has been 'depreciated' but now has little to no presence then
> 'obsolete' is a good status for it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Warin
Err .. sent to tagging list, so response here. Not to worry, a little more chatter.
(Should there be a wiki edit list? Or would 'we' all then have to join that well as the tagging list? Anyone not want to be part of the discussions on wiki edits possibly of relevance to tagging? )

On 29/07/19 16:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

> (Not sent to tagging list)
>
> I think the idea was that a tree with a proper name is an important /
> landmark tree?
>
> Perhaps you crazy Europeans name your special trees, eg King George's Oak?
>
> The other suggestion was to use "landmark=yes" but this key is also
> not recommended. Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is
> actually used now days.

Correct. I looked it up.  :)

The key denotation is meant for special trees .. see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denotation

So I have changed the wiki again . to simply direct 'special tree' tagging to that page.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:denotation%3Dcluster

If people want to mention names .. the denotation page would be the better place for it.

>
> Joseph
>
> On 7/29/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 29/07/19 15:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>> I've edited the page:
>>>
>>> 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny just
>>> made, for better English style.
>>>
>>> 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are
>>> "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not
>>> recommended".
>>>
>>> I also removed the suggestion that "de facto" tags are supported by
>>> rendering / routing / editing software - while this is usually true,
>>> it isn't what determines if a tag is given "de facto" status.
>>>
>>> 3) I removed "obsolete" status from the list with deprecated/discouraged.
>>>
>>> However, I now think I figured out what this status is supposed to
>>> mean: it's supposed to be used for tags that were deprecated, but now
>>> no longer even appear in the database, so the wiki page is only for
>>> historical information.
>>>
>>> Do we really need a special status for this, or should is it ok if I
>>> retag the 6 tags with this status to "deprecated"?
>>>
>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22
>>>
>>> - Tag:abandoned=yes - recommended replacement abandoned:*=* - used 34,000
>>> times
>>> - Tag:amenity=Kneippbecken - approved replacement is
>>> amenity=kneipp_water_cure - used 0 times
>>> - Tag:man_made=power_hydro / Tag:man_made=power_nuclear /
>>> Tag:man_made=power_wind - use  power=generator, generator:source=*
>>> instead - used a couple of times only.
>>> - Tag:denotation=cluster - for special trees. Recommend to use name=*
>>> instead with natural=tree. Had been down to 0 uses at one point, but
>>> now there are a few hundred?
>> Gah! use name=* for something other than the name? No. Use the description
>> key for that.
>> Edited wiki to remove this suggestion.
>>
>>> So only amenity=Kneippbecken and man_made=power_* really fit the
>>> "obsolete" status, though there are a number of tags currently with
>>> "deprecated" that are also no longer found in the database.
>>>
>> Once something has been 'depreciated' but now has little to no presence then
>> 'obsolete' is a good status for it.
>>
>>


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

Re: New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Tobias Zwick
One or several wiki edits should stand at the end of every tagging discussion, to document the conclusions made.

Tobias

On July 29, 2019 8:37:25 AM GMT+02:00, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Err .. sent to tagging list, so response here. Not to worry, a little
>more chatter.
>(Should there be a wiki edit list? Or would 'we' all then have to join
>that well as the tagging list? Anyone not want to be part of the
>discussions on wiki edits possibly of relevance to tagging? )
>
>On 29/07/19 16:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>
>> (Not sent to tagging list)
>>
>> I think the idea was that a tree with a proper name is an important /
>> landmark tree?
>>
>> Perhaps you crazy Europeans name your special trees, eg King George's
>Oak?
>>
>> The other suggestion was to use "landmark=yes" but this key is also
>> not recommended. Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is
>> actually used now days.
>
>Correct. I looked it up.  :)
>
>The key denotation is meant for special trees .. see
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denotation
>
>So I have changed the wiki again . to simply direct 'special tree'
>tagging to that page.
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:denotation%3Dcluster
>
>If people want to mention names .. the denotation page would be the
>better place for it.
>
>>
>> Joseph
>>
>> On 7/29/19, Warin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 29/07/19 15:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
>>>> I've edited the page:
>>>>
>>>> 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny
>just
>>>> made, for better English style.
>>>>
>>>> 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are
>>>> "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not
>>>> recommended".
>>>>
>>>> I also removed the suggestion that "de facto" tags are supported by
>>>> rendering / routing / editing software - while this is usually
>true,
>>>> it isn't what determines if a tag is given "de facto" status.
>>>>
>>>> 3) I removed "obsolete" status from the list with
>deprecated/discouraged.
>>>>
>>>> However, I now think I figured out what this status is supposed to
>>>> mean: it's supposed to be used for tags that were deprecated, but
>now
>>>> no longer even appear in the database, so the wiki page is only for
>>>> historical information.
>>>>
>>>> Do we really need a special status for this, or should is it ok if
>I
>>>> retag the 6 tags with this status to "deprecated"?
>>>>
>>>>
>https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22
>>>>
>>>> - Tag:abandoned=yes - recommended replacement abandoned:*=* - used
>34,000
>>>> times
>>>> - Tag:amenity=Kneippbecken - approved replacement is
>>>> amenity=kneipp_water_cure - used 0 times
>>>> - Tag:man_made=power_hydro / Tag:man_made=power_nuclear /
>>>> Tag:man_made=power_wind - use  power=generator, generator:source=*
>>>> instead - used a couple of times only.
>>>> - Tag:denotation=cluster - for special trees. Recommend to use
>name=*
>>>> instead with natural=tree. Had been down to 0 uses at one point,
>but
>>>> now there are a few hundred?
>>> Gah! use name=* for something other than the name? No. Use the
>description
>>> key for that.
>>> Edited wiki to remove this suggestion.
>>>
>>>> So only amenity=Kneippbecken and man_made=power_* really fit the
>>>> "obsolete" status, though there are a number of tags currently with
>>>> "deprecated" that are also no longer found in the database.
>>>>
>>> Once something has been 'depreciated' but now has little to no
>presence then
>>> 'obsolete' is a good status for it.
>>>
>>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Tagging mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

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