[Tagging] Rethinking Map Features

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Jul 10 22:18:57 UTC 2019

On 10/07/19 20:06, marc marc wrote:
> Le 07.07.19 à 10:31, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> the difference between "de facto" and "in use"
>> is unclear at the moment.
> approved : a proposal was made and approved during the vote.
> no proposal has in the meantime depreciated this tag.
> de facto: a not-voted tag but whose important use and absence
> of criticism makes it the tag to use for the described usecase.

I apply an additional qualification: existed before the approval process.

> in use : I see 2 possible meanings:
> or it is a generic value for tags that have not been further analyzed
> and better classified in a more specific category.
> or it is a value to say "not approved, not de facto".

With the above additional qualification to de facto, 'In use' becomes a frequently used tag without any criticism.
The difference between the two is historical, before or after the adoption of the approval process.
It distinguishes between those tags that could not have been through the approval process and those that could but were not.

> landuse=forest<>natural=wood" could probably be in this situation
> since there is not a de facto tag to use to describe a forest but 2.
> probably that a better word would be necessary, if not to succeed in
> having one "de facto"
> _______________________________________________

The key 'landuse' implies that 'landuse=forest' is for those area that have economic befits to humans e.g. timber produce.

The tag natural=wood can be used for "managed woods" as the key 'natural' states that it can be used for things that have human intervention.

There is considerable criticism of the use of both tags, so there should be some concern over the status of these, perhaps a new status "contentious"?

More information about the Tagging mailing list