<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/04/2023 16:57, Mateusz Konieczny
via talk wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:NTnz3oU--3-9@tutanota.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Apr 22, 2023, 14:10 by <a href="mailto:ajt1047@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">ajt1047@gmail.com</a>:<br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid
#93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">
<div>More generally, anyone with half a brain consuming OSM shop
data (or actually, _any_ external data from _anywhere_) will
look at the values contained in it***.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div dir="auto">And that is exactly what lead to proposing this
edits - I was writing code to handle OSM<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">data and researched tagging situation. And one
of[1] effects was discovering numerous<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">cases of tags that seem to be exact duplicates of
more standard ones, and retagging<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">them seems to clearly improve OSM data as far as I
can see<br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Your continued tagfiddling here is making it much harder for
local mappers to find problem values in OSM data.</p>
<p>No-one's going to complain about you changing "shop=shoe" to
"shop=shoes" - they clearly have the same meaning, so changing the
less common form to the more common form is a net benefit.<br>
</p>
<p>However, your recent changes have gone much further than this,
included changing shops with values you don't understand into
"shop=yes". As an example, consider
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353944525">https://www.openstreetmap.org/way/353944525</a> . It was previously
"shop=retail", an unusual and rare tag that would likely flag up
the interest of a passing local mapper. You changed it to
"shop=yes", of which there are 180,000 of in OSM. No-one is going
to spot that as an "unusual" shop at all. This one's actually a
charity shop, and a question about it on IRC would have got that
response in only a few minutes (or a glance at taginfo/overpass:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Lighthouse%20Charity%20Shop#overview">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/name=Lighthouse%20Charity%20Shop#overview</a>
/ <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1v3j">https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1v3j</a> ).<br>
</p>
<p>Changing "invalid" (by whatever definition) values to "valid but
incorrect" ones does not improve the quality of OSM, and it
actually hides problems so that they are much harder to fix in the
future.</p>
<p>Do we perhaps need a StreetComplete quest searching for incorrect
values set by "Mateusz Konieczny - bot account" so that they can
be corrected to valid values? :)</p>
<p>In the case of the changesets that I've seen just now and
commented on (see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=3199858">https://resultmaps.neis-one.org/osm-discussion-comments?uid=3199858</a>
) many are by longstanding contributors to OSM. In many cases a
comment on a previous changeset would have got the answer "yes,
obviously that should be a shop=xyz" (rather than you just setting
it to shop=yes). I thought that after the discussion on
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134837986">https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/134837986</a> that you weren't
going to mass-change actual values to shop=yes any more, but
clearly I was wrong.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy</p>
<p>(for the avoidance of doubt, writing in a personal capacity)</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>