[Tagging] Status values - was motorcycle:scale

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Feb 7 22:48:49 UTC 2019


On 08/02/19 08:57, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2019 at 23:59, Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:pla16021 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     There's a hierarchy of tag acceptability based upon how much
>     forethought has gone into it.
>     Proposed and approved.  Proposed and rejected. Proposed and
>     lapsed.  Widely used.
>     Used once or twice.  Used once by somebody who didn't know there
>     was already an approved tag.
>     Ideally we document as many of those as possible and indicate how
>     acceptable they are with the
>     status.
>
>     My point was that "proposed" is not the same as "informal." 
>     Proposing a tag is part of a formal
>     discussion process that may lead to acceptance or rejection. 
>     Informal is me wanting to tag
>     some type of object, being unable to find a suitable tag (or being
>     too lazy to look), and just making it
>     up ad hoc.  As we had with landuse=clearing a while ago.  Which
>     should probably be documented
>     as deprecated along with the correct way to do it (multipolygon
>     with an inner area, maybe without
>     any other tag if you're unsure what is there other than
>     not-outer).  Informal or ad hoc would be
>     somebody made up a tag for which there isn't already a better
>     alternative and it isn't yet in
>     widespread use.
>
>
> So using a real example here, lets go back to my shop=caravan from a 
> few weeks back.
>
> I asked what we should tag a caravan dealer as & somebody replied just 
> use shop=caravan as it's already in use, as it was, 140 odd times, but 
> not documented.
>
> I then created a page for it, which, after discussions & taking in 
> other points of view,  was modified several times, along with several 
> other pages for possible alternatives, suggesting people use the 
> =caravan tag.
>
> As the shop=caravan tag was already in use, I didn't put up a formal 
> RFC or ask for a vote - should I have? (& no-one complained at the 
> time that I hadn't)
>
> So would you call that tag approved, widely used, informal or what?
>

The rate of use can be seen with the taginfo information. Lets not 
duplicate it in the status information with some subjective term.



Status presently has (together with my understand of what that means);

blank - this is what I use to create a new page. I leave the status 
value blank. Probably interpreted as 'undefined'

--- Part of the proposal process --

draft - draft for a proposal
proposed - a new proposal, usually in 'request for comments' stage
voting - a proposal in 'voting' stage where people can vote on it
rejected - a proposal that has been rejected by voting
accepted - a proposal that has been accepted by voting
abandoned - a proposal that has been dormant for some time
cancled - a proposal that has been cancelled by the proposer (note the 
spelling)


--- Outside the proposal process --

undefined/invalid - a proposal that has no status, or an unrecognised 
status value?

in_use - a tag that is in wide use
defacto - a tag that existed before the formal proposal process and is 
in wide use - viewed as similar to approved

depreciated - a tag that is being replaced with another tag or other tags.

-----------------------
I think any other values are going to be interpreted as 'undefined'.
The status value is really a wiki page thing and should be discussed 
there? At least some notification that this is being disscused here



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190208/73078eac/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list