[Tagging] Drain vs. ditch

EthnicFood IsGreat ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com
Sat Feb 2 17:53:52 UTC 2019


> Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2019 16:49:54 +0100
> From: Peter Elderson <pelderson at gmail.com>
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> 	<tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs. ditch
>
>
> Who is to decide?
>
> Mvg Peter Elderson
>
>> Op 2 feb. 2019 om 15:38 heeft EthnicFood IsGreat <ethnicfoodisgreat at gmail.com> het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>
>>> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2019 14:22:20 +0100
>>> From: Hufkratzer <hufkratzer at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>>>     <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Drain vs ditch
>>>
>>>
>>> If we were discussing a proposal I would agree, but replacing
>>> waterway=drain by waterway=ditch + usage=drainage or sth. like that is
>>> not such an easy task.  We already have 800k drains. I assume it
>>> requires a proposal with volting to deprecate drain, adaption of the
>>> presets, perhaps a mass edit. Who will do all this? Is the advantage of
>>> using waterway=ditch + usage=drainage instead of waterway=drain so
>>> immense that it is worth the effort?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> This goes to the very core of the tagging policy of OSM.  The current state of OSM tags is a screwed up mess.  Because we are "prohibited" from going back in time and correcting bad tagging decisions that were made in the past, we are stuck with trying to shoehorn new tag definitions into a chaotic, disorganized system. The way I see it, if we were allowed to conduct mass edits to revise poorly-planned tagging choices, we would save ourselves a lot of trouble in the long run.  It would be painful at first, adjusting to the changes, but I think it would be worth it.  Don't we all agree that if we were starting all over from scratch, we would give a lot more thought to tagging?
>>
>> Mark
>>
>>

Ha ha, that would be the topic of a whole other discussion.

Mark





More information about the Tagging mailing list