<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-text-flowed" style="font-family: -moz-fixed;
font-size: 13px;" lang="x-unicode">On 01/01/2015 23:34, Rainer
Fügenstein wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<br>
pipeline mapping is the field of a small minority of mappers.
<br>
considering this logic, established tags in fields of "minority
<br>
interests" can never be changed, unless it becomes the interest
of the
<br>
majority.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
You might be surprised. As well as people who are "interested in
pipelines" they're often also a useful navigation feature (if not
always as obvious as, say, an overhead power line). Near me in
the English midlands features such as the Derwent Aqueduct and
underground fuel supply lines become very obvious once you start
recognising the features - and they have very different features
on the surface because of the different thing being carried. In
many ways it's similar to the electricity supply tagging changes
that have happened over the years - those changes didn't always
appear to consider the usefulness of those features to people
using them for navigation. In other places overground pipelines
are very important to people interested in wildlife migration, for
example.
<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: #000000;">
<br>
apart from that, the main criticism is the change of "type=*" to
<br>
"sustance=*" (which was also done in the changeset) as a result
of the
<br>
proposal. I see a point here, considering that the change of a
tag
<br>
affects map styles, software, ... as mentioned by SomeoneElse.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
To be clear, I don't think that anyone's criticising the change
itself, just the notification of it. If people are using existing
data they need to get some warning that it's about to change
(separately from the more "in depth" discussions on the tagging
list about how best to tag something new). The only thing that
the "proposal process" in the wiki says about existing data is
"never use a vote result as a justification for large-scale
re-tagging of existing objects". Now two pipelines clearly isn't
"large-scale", but it would still have been nice for data
consumers to know that the change was happening.
<br>
<br>
Cheers,
<br>
<br>
Andy
<br>
<br>
</div>
</body>
</html>