<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><table width="100%" style="width: 100%; -premailer-width: 100%; -premailer-cellpadding: 0;
-premailer-cellspacing: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"><tbody><tr><td><p>Anyone suggesting widespread changes such as this needs to
explain how this proposal will help with at least one of the
following:<br></p><div dir="auto">1) Allowing new mappers to contribute to OSM easier than they
currently can<br></div><div dir="auto">2) Allowing some nuance to be captured that can't be captured now<br></div><div dir="auto">3) Make life easier for data consumers in some way<br></div><p>and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary
upheaval (which in this case would be significant). Note that
"satisfying the data normalisation urges of people familiar with
working with databases" isn't on that list. <br></p></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div dir="auto">Though also explained in the proposal, let me answer these:<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">1) New mappers often have trouble learning how to map landuse/natural/landcover. It is not always clear when to use the different tags and when not. However, assessing the physical landcover is much easier. You can say, this area is covered with grass, no matter the function of that area. And even experienced mappers like me sometimes struggle to find the correct tag why the physical landcover is clear. Therefore, the landcover tag will make mapping much easier for new mappers.<br></div><div dir="auto">2) I personally often face that I can't properly access the function of a piece of land. Instead of possible incorrectly tagging with with e.g. a landuse tag, tagging it with landcover instead is much better because you can describe the physical coverage. Somebody with more knowledge can then maybe add the function of tag with another tag.<br></div><div dir="auto">3.1) First of all, it makes rendering easier because the values are much better separated. For example, you no longer have a physical tag (landuse=grass/flowerbed) in the same key as a functional tag (e.g. landuse=residential). </div><div dir="auto">3.2) The tagging system and thus the data is easier to understand for a data consumer. Now they have to learn all the strangeness of the current landuse/natural/landcover tagging system. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">So it is not just "satisfying the data normalisation urges of people familiar with
working with databases". Using landcover will result in long term improvements for the tagging scheme. Even we now have to make some hard choices on some existing tags.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br></div><div>Vincent <br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>13 feb. 2023 14:10 van ajt1047_at_gmail_com_byfwqd@simplelogin.co:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><table style="width: 100%; -premailer-width: 100%; -premailer-cellpadding: 0;
-premailer-cellspacing: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td style="border-bottom:1px dashed #5675E2; padding: 10px 0px"><p style="color:red">This email failed anti-phishing checks when it was received by SimpleLogin, be careful with its content.
More info on <a href="https://simplelogin.io/docs/getting-started/anti-phishing/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">anti-phishing measure</a><br></p></td></tr><tr><td><p>> By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution
rates and be criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or
established tagging.<br></p><p>An actual example would be really useful here.<br></p><p>> Establishment nor longstanding practices shouldn't be valid
reasons on their own to justify decision making about tagging. <br></p><p>Indeed - if a proposal (even a reorganisation of existing usage)
allows better information to be collected then it makes sense to
do it. The "diplomatic" reorganisation was one such (though the
implementation was botched). In this case, I'm not convinced that
this proposal has any benefit. We have edge cases now; after this
proposal we will still have a whole bunch of slightly different
edge cases.<br></p><p>> How about considering tagging as an independent valuable
thing we should take care of as well?<br></p><p>Because it isn't? It's literally just describing how things are
stored within OSM. Anyone coming to OpenStreetMap as a mapper for
the first time won't see tags at all - their editor will look
after that for them. A data consumer will have a simplified view
of the world and will have to map OSM concepts into the ones that
they are interested in. <br></p><p>As a concrete example, here:<br></p><p><a href="https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L6003" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L6003</a><br></p><p>is where I take a bunch of things from OSM and map them into a
concept that is displayed on a map ("Variety Stores", shown with a
"£" symbol**). A map for a different platform, here:<br></p><p><a href="https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/mkgmap_style_ajt/blob/master/transform_03.lua#L1760" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/mkgmap_style_ajt/blob/master/transform_03.lua#L1760</a><br></p><p>has a mapping onto a different category, "General Stores". This
is because this map is for Garmin devices which (by default) have
a hardcoded series of categories that the search menus know about,
and "Variety Stores" isn't one of them, but "General Stores" is.<br></p><p>Almost no-one in the outside world is going to want to
distinguish between the actual OSM values here; they're only
interested in their own real-world concepts. In many cases this
may be much broader-brush, perhaps "shops that sell food" vs
"shows that primarily sell non-food", or even just "shops".<br></p><p>Anyone suggesting widespread changes such as this needs to
explain how this proposal will help with at least one of the
following:<br></p><ul><li>Allowing new mappers to contribute to OSM easier than they
currently can<br></li><li>Allowing some nuance to be captured that can't be captured now<br></li><li>Make life easier for data consumers in some way<br></li></ul><p>and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary
upheaval (which in this case would be significant). Note that
"satisfying the data normalisation urges of people familiar with
working with databases" isn't on that list. <br></p><p>Best Regards,<br></p><p>Andy<br></p><p>** apologies to anyone with a pocketful of € instead of £<br></p><p><br></p><div class="">On 13/02/2023 12:21, François Lacombe
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hello<br></div><div><br></div><div class=""><div class="" dir="ltr">Le ven. 10 févr. 2023
à 19:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <<a class="" href="mailto:tagging@openstreetmap.org" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>>
a écrit :<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class=""><div><div>Or to be more specific solved problems, if any, are
much smaller than size <br></div><div dir="auto">of change of longstanding tagging
practices.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>To me, it's a return of experience matter and a debate we
should provide with facts.<br></div></div><div class="">OSM has been created to question
longstanding practices, how the same can be raised to prevent
its own evolution nowadays?<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">Many attempts to change longstanding
practices in the past had unleashed contribution and bring
more visibility on covered topics.<br></div><div class="">I made a presentation at SOTM France
last year about what benefits tagging development brings to
OSM.<br></div><div class="">Studying chronology tabs on taginfo
learn us a lot about how the community reacts with such
changing, despite changes may be slow or significant.<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">The methodology and efforts deployed to
achieve the rollout of new tagging should be adapted in regard
of amounts of features to retag, yes (and we will never be
perfect from that perspective).<br></div><div class="">By the way, I saw some changes leading
to x10 contribution rates and be criticized as disrupting
longstanding practices or established tagging.<br></div><div class="">Establishment nor longstanding
practices shoudn't be valid reasons on their own to justify
decision making about tagging. <br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">How about considering tagging as an
independent valuable thing we should take care of as well?<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">Best regards<br></div><div class=""><br></div><div class="">François<br></div></div><div><br></div><pre wrap="" class="">_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
<a href="mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Tagging@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging" class="" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging</a>
<br></pre></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div> </body>
</html>