<div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le jeu. 16 févr. 2023 à 14:36, 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 dir="auto">Have you compared increase in activity with change in OSM activity in general<br></div><div dir="auto">or other unrelated object types where no such changes happened?<br></div><div dir="auto">For example other power network tagging where no such proposal happened<br></div><div dir="auto">or happened at a different time?<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It seems dubious to attribute that change solely to this deprecation.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div></div><div>OSM activity grows irregularly while we clearly see before and after situation following each vote. Here, the contribution rate is almost constant since 2014 vote and isn't correlated to OSM activity curve.<br></div><div>Global contribution may have a long term influence yes, but the short-term inductor is encouragement from proposal discussion and vote.<br></div><div>Let's plot it: <a href="https://imgur.com/a/YvCqOk1">https://imgur.com/a/YvCqOk1</a></div><div>(Sorry for French, took from the sotm-fr slides. Proposal steps, Brouillon=Draft, Discussion=RFC, Accepté=Approved)<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><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto">More likely seems that whatever reason caused greater interest resulted in the<br></div><div dir="auto">increased mapping activity and tagging proposals.<br></div><div dir="auto">Not that tagging proposals resulted in greater activity.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If that were accurate, we would seen the increase prior the proposal, not after its vote and post vote improvements.</div><div><br></div><div>Not to mention many proposals would be down voted due to increasing usage of what is proposed to be changed, seen as establishment before vote begins.</div><div>That's the case for substation refinement proposal: power=sub_station usage grew by 50% between the beginning of draft and vote.</div><div>Some opponent argued that changed tagging was abundantly used.<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><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto">Is it possible that change in tag use was result of imports?<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>That probable, and likely local imports, at city scale. I've noticed some of them along years.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Whatever imports or not, both data availability and osm tagging model availability may have encouraged it. It's included in the contribution rate.</div><div class="gmail_quote">No worldwide, continental nor country scale import so far.</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><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><div><div><br></div><div>* In 2018, replacement of voltage-high/voltage-low by voltage:primary/voltage:secondary<br></div><div>Respectively 6200 + 4600 in 8 years (1350/year) versus 110000+95000 in 5 years (41k/year) => x30<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><a href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/voltage%3Aprimary#chronology" target="_blank">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/voltage%3Aprimary#chronology</a> has clear<br></div><div dir="auto">sign of import/bot edits<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">no idea why you would attribute that to tagging proposal<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Because import / bot edits were triggered by the proposal which introduced this particular tagging change.</div><div>voltage:primary didn't even exist prior the proposal.<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><div><div><br></div><div>* In 2021, replacement of tower:type=branch by line_management=branch or split or cross<br></div><div>Respectively 3600 in 7 years (515/year) versus 22030 in 2 years (11k/year) => x21<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">here using tower:type was a clear mistake, so making tagging this detail more acceptable<br></div><div dir="auto">could have a good effects.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Though not sure had this tag change had any serious opposition.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Serious or not, the replacement was discussed and the establishment of tower:type was raised</div><div><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Lines_management#Should_we_really_deprecate_such_a_common_tag">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Lines_management#Should_we_really_deprecate_such_a_common_tag</a>?</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><div><div>Regarding the valuable point you make on tagging meta data making osm tags invisible for common users, I wonder why we are busy with writing readable proposals and then stuck on updating manually every toolchain with the same information.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">because various tool do different things with OSM data<br></div></div></blockquote><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Doing different tasks isn't a valid argument to expect contributors providing the same information several times instead of finding it once, at the right place the information belongs.</div><div class="gmail_quote">It's inconsistent prone (from language to another, from tool to another...) and precisely what we suffer from.<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">Best regards</div><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote">François<br></div></div>