[Tagging] Recreation_ground (landuse vs leisure)

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Sun May 26 23:25:32 UTC 2013

On 27.05.2013 00:47, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Hannes <hannes.janetzek at googlemail.com> writes:
>> Sorry, I was not aware of that policy. I will discuss such edits in future.
>> Please revert if they are unreasonable
> You should revert them yourself.  If you aren't comfortable doing
> reverts, you should not be running a bot.

I disagree - he should not revert his previous edits which were genuine
improvements. If anything at all, he could revert this particular edit
of *=recreation_ground ways. But if you actually believe that it was
wrong, you could just as well do it yourself - it will be dealt with
faster that way.

I also want to point out that Hannes is not "running a bot". He is,
apparently, simply using JOSM.

> Fixing typos is one thing,
> but your leisure->landuse changes are not in the category of "99.5% of
> mappers think that they are obviously correct fixes".

In the case of recreation_ground, I agree that the number of uses of
leisure=recreation_ground should have tipped him off that this might not
be an uncontroversial edit.

But with the other changes, things are different. I believe that
changing a handful instances of an undocumented tag to an obviously
synonymous tag that *is* documented and much more widely used (e.g.
1000x in the case of village green) is valuable cleanup work fully
comparable to fixing typos. Without patient contributors silently
performing routine housekeeping like that, our database would be even
more messy than it already is.


More information about the Tagging mailing list