<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Feb 11, 2021, 13:35 by osm@imagico.de:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>On Thursday 11 February 2021, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>I’d also like to add: the proposal dealt mostly with the introduction<br></div><div>of the water-key for refining natural=water, the idea to deprecate at<br></div><div>the same time waterway=riverbank was coupled to this [...]<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>For those who won't take the time to read up on the proposal process <br></div><div>back then and choose to believe the fake news circulated here - the <br></div><div>water details proposal never deprecated the use of waterway=riverbank. <br></div></blockquote><div>To be more exact: it stated "water=river deprecates waterway=riverbank"<br></div><div>and then redefined what deprecates mean<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>"Deprecates" means "is equivalent for all purposes to". For example, <br></div><div>landuse=reservoir should be rendered exactly like natural=water + <br></div><div>water=reservoir. There are too many uses of the current tagging scheme, <br></div><div>and we don't want massive retagging and edit wars. <br></div></blockquote><div>The result is extreme confusion :(<br></div><div><br></div><div>Stating "A deprecates B" in proposal and them immediately<br></div><div>redefining what "deprecates" mean is problematic.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Or maybe what it means for tag to be deprecated changed since that time?<br></div> </body>
</html>