[Tagging] setting proposals to abandoned

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sat Mar 26 14:45:53 UTC 2016


The status should in some way make it clear to people who use the wiki
as a tagging reference whether the contents of the page should be taken
into account or not. If the proposal has been "abandoned" but what is
suggests has nonetheless entered wider usage, then it is de facto
accepted by the community, and you could not easily make a case to say
it should not be followed. If the main wiki has not (yet) been updated
following the proposal, then labelling the proposal as "accepted de
facto" would be a simple way of confirming that it is still relevant.

//colin 

On 2016-03-26 15:18, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote on 2016/03/26 12:49: Am 26.03.2016 um 11:49 schrieb Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at gmail.com>:
> 
> "what would be a reasonable threshold" - no edits in this or previous
> year is my typical method to recognise something on internet as dead. 
> but wouldn't it be necessary to look at actual map edits rather than on a wiki page
> (i.e. has the tag been applied to objects in the last year)? If the definition is
> settled there is maybe no need to make changes to the wiki, you can just use the tag.

Yes but one thing is the proposal, the other is the actual usage of
tags.

While the actual map usage should be documented on the tag page,
still the proposal can be considered abandoned.

The typical thing about Abandoning is that the proposer has "ceased to
support or look after" [Oxford], the active role of the proposer would
be Cancelling.

There is a wiki page about the proposal process, which recommends
abandoning
after 3 month, which I think is too tight.

In the specific case, the proposal was to fully replace 'kindergarten'
with 'childcare',
which was proposed 28 months ago, and has also not happened in practical
tagging.

This is quite in contrast to successful changing schemes, such as
nursing_home
to social_facility + sub-tagging.

The unfortunate issue with 'childcare' was the insufficient
differentiation from
other tags in the first proposal, and the unnecessary attempt to replace
an established
tag in the second. The tag page is extremely vague, so at the end of the
day
nobody knows what an object such tagged is in reality.

tom

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20160326/ab5dd518/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list