[Tagging] tagging for decaying features
Richard
ricoz.osm at gmail.com
Tue Jan 9 23:15:39 UTC 2018
On Sun, Jan 07, 2018 at 01:37:26PM +1100, Warin wrote:
> On 07-Jan-18 09:59 AM, Richard wrote:
>
> >On Sat, Jan 06, 2018 at 07:19:31AM +1100, Warin wrote:
> >
> >>2) I have not put in any examples - just placed the birthing, decay and repurpose categories on the main page.
> >>
> >>I hoped to bring some organisation to the page and simplify the understanding. If this has exposed misuse GOOD!
> >It was good to point out the problems with "historic:" but don't see any gain
> >in the reorganisation, especially as "birth" and "decay" are very poor section
> >headers to organise that.
>
> What headers/terms would you suggest?
don't have much better now. Genesis or "initial stages" vs varoius stages
of abandonment.
One problem is that an object that gets disused may become used again or
reused or something new replaces it. It is not that each object necessary
goes through all stages of "decay", hence such grouping isn't ideal either.
> As the things were getting confusing, for me at least, I though some organisation was needed.
I think the old scheme - ordering by frequency of use was not so bad. It would
naturally guide mappers to consider the most used tags before more exotic ones
and this kind of approach worked well in other cases.
Here "historic:" was an outlier, the frequency of its use as life cycle prefix
was simply not calculated properly. If only real uses as lifecycle prefix were
counted it would be somewhere far behind the other choices.
Some other tasg like "no:" were also documented in this page which are not
really life cycle tags but occassionaly may have been used for a similar purpose
when no other tag was deemed fitting - this again escapes any easy attempts at
categorisation.
Richard
More information about the Tagging
mailing list