[Tagging] Tagging of State Parks in the US

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Sun Jul 28 23:18:17 UTC 2019

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 5:56 PM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2019 at 22:35, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Would it be appropriate to propose a mechanical edit to add area=yes
>> to closed ways that are tagged boundary={aboriginal_lands,
>> national_park, protected_area} and lack any other keys that would make
>> them polygons?
> Wearing my pedant hat, I'd say it's appropriate to propose just about anything, however
> nonsensical.

Thanks for the levity!

> Taking off my pedant hat, I'd say that seems like a sensible thing to do.
> Putting on my cynic hat, I'd say you'll probably get too many objections for it to happen:
> people will say you have to manually ensure area=yes is actually valid in each situation;

Yeah. Although, how can a protected_AREA be anything but an area?  But
never mind that!

> others will say that mechanical edits should never be performed for any reason;

Still, they get done from time to time. I've even seen bots come by
and tidy up things in my own work.

> a few will say we should not compensate for database/toolchain shortcomings by
> adding unnecessary tags.

Yeah. The ones who ignore the statement that you just made, " If it
breaks things, it won't be used."

More information about the Tagging mailing list