<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 16/12/2022 07:33, Mateusz Konieczny
via Tagging wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:NJOqW_R--3-9@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
If this edit was in violation of <br>
<div dir="auto"><a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">then I would recommend notifying DWG<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<p>(for the avoidance of any doubt) I am a member of the DWG, but
this was not raised with the DWG as an issue. I just encountered
it as an ordinary mapper, albeit one with rather more experience
of this sort of thing than most people.</p>
<p>Essentially, "I gave myself the advice that I would have given
had it been reported to the DWG" - look at the data that has
changed and the time that has passed, and figure out the best way
forward. As I said yesterday "Normally I'd suggest just reverting
your undiscussed mechanical edits ... but this far on from the
change I'm not convinced that would be the best approach".
However I do believe that the people responsible for this mess
tidy up the data in the wiki and fix the broken links. <br>
</p>
<p>As an aside, the code required to handle these objects has grown
by 50% (from 33 lines to 50), partly because "diplomatic" sort of
is a primary tag and sort of isn't ("office=diplomatic" is still a
thing), and now includes comedy "no=yes" checks like '( keyvalues[<span
class="pl-s"><span class="pl-pds">"</span>diplomatic<span
class="pl-pds">"</span></span>] <span class="pl-k">==</span>
<span class="pl-s"><span class="pl-pds">"</span>non_diplomatic<span
class="pl-pds">"</span></span>)'
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1885">https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1885</a>
, but I suspect that that ship has sailed a long time ago. <br>
</p>
<p>There hasn't yet been an acceptance that the approach used to
change these tags was wrong (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117329397">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117329397</a> ). To be clear
- tag consolidation (where many tags really do mean the same
thing) is a good idea, provided that the new schema isn't
completely bonkers and <a
href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct</a>
is followed to the letter. Plenty of people do that (including
you!) without causing any complaints.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>