<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi Mateusz,</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le lun. 30 mai 2022 à 11:18, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div><br></div><div>May 29, 2022, 23:55 by <a href="mailto:fl.infosreseaux@gmail.com" target="_blank">fl.infosreseaux@gmail.com</a>:<br></div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div>It won't be possible to make hundred of contained features fit on a node there.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">mapping such object as a node in the first pass mapping <br></div><div dir="auto">(for example - while aerial imagery is not available) is OK<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's valid and not what the wiki intends to regulate. <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div>To me, there is no point to prescript geometry affinity in wiki at the lowest (or limited) information level available.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Well, then people claim that "it is forbidden to map XYZ as node".<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wiki states "it may be" or "it should not" when you roll over the icons.</div><div>Stating it forbids is false from that perspective.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Maybe there would be benefit from extra state there, "discouraged"?<br></div><div dir="auto">That could go on on landuse=cemetery nodes and so on.<br></div><div dir="auto">(note: I am not planning to work on this)<br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">onNode=no already means "it should not be used on nodes"<div>What discouraged would bring on top of this?<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">It's valuable to prescript it with highest knowledge possible in mind.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Many people edit in poorly mapped parts of world, OSM Wiki should be<br></div><div dir="auto">documenting OSM, not just well mapped OSM parts<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wiki doesn't say "it used on" but "it may be used on", which is not documentation but prescription, clearly and that is valuable this way.<br></div><div>If people want to know how it is actually used, they look on taginfo, just like we are doing there.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto">many objects are not mappable as nodes at all<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Which one please?<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div>Same for water=lake, deservedly discouraged on nodes in the wiki.<br></div><div><a rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dlake" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dlake</a><br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I just edited wiki to fix this<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Wow that's a bit quick, please revert it.<br></div><div>Reviewed proposal clearly states only for areas. Why did you do that ?</div><div><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=2223203">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=2223203</a></div><div><br></div><div>Did you see what taginfo shows about actual usage?</div><div>More than 99% of lakes are areas.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><blockquote style="border-left:1px solid rgb(147,163,184);padding-left:10px;margin-left:5px"><div dir="ltr"><div>Finally, all this proposal is about quality control and disambiguation between substations and contained features.<br></div><div>Defining situations where areas are preferred leads to more relevant quality checks.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Right now it is not defining as preferred.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is not even banning use of [power=substation] (without extra tags, or with<br></div><div dir="auto">some substation=* values) on nodes.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No it's no banning because not desirable</div><div>*some* substation=* values are valid on nodes implies power=substation should be valid with both nodes and areas.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_nodes_extension#Vote" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_nodes_extension#Vote</a><br></div><div dir="auto">misleadingly claims that it is already banned.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Not at all.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto">I see that it also claims that utility=power is mandatory on building=service housing<br></div><div dir="auto">substations (it is not, I mapped many building=service without adding this and it is fine,<br></div><div dir="auto">especially if I added power=substation then adding utility=power adds no real benefit)</div><div dir="auto">Describing it as mandatory is again pretending that consensus already exists.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This has been fixed and removed from example to make it clear about what the point is in the proposal.</div><div>Thank you for this warning.<br></div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Cheers<div><br></div><div>François<br></div></div></div></div>