[Tagging] New page "Approval status" for "de facto", "in use", "approved" etc

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Mon Jul 29 07:20:50 UTC 2019


ym to document the date when total disagreement was reached, the number of
days that took and how many mails were sent?

Vr gr Peter Elderson


Op ma 29 jul. 2019 om 08:49 schreef Tobias Zwick <osm at westnordost.de>:

> One or several wiki edits should stand at the end of every tagging
> discussion, to document the conclusions made.
>
> Tobias
>
> On July 29, 2019 8:37:25 AM GMT+02:00, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >Err .. sent to tagging list, so response here. Not to worry, a little
> >more chatter.
> >(Should there be a wiki edit list? Or would 'we' all then have to join
> >that well as the tagging list? Anyone not want to be part of the
> >discussions on wiki edits possibly of relevance to tagging? )
> >
> >On 29/07/19 16:13, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >
> >> (Not sent to tagging list)
> >>
> >> I think the idea was that a tree with a proper name is an important /
> >> landmark tree?
> >>
> >> Perhaps you crazy Europeans name your special trees, eg King George's
> >Oak?
> >>
> >> The other suggestion was to use "landmark=yes" but this key is also
> >> not recommended. Someone needs to check how denotation=cluster is
> >> actually used now days.
> >
> >Correct. I looked it up.  :)
> >
> >The key denotation is meant for special trees .. see
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:denotation
> >
> >So I have changed the wiki again . to simply direct 'special tree'
> >tagging to that page.
> >https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:denotation%3Dcluster
> >
> >If people want to mention names .. the denotation page would be the
> >better place for it.
> >
> >>
> >> Joseph
> >>
> >> On 7/29/19, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On 29/07/19 15:26, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> >>>> I've edited the page:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) I reworded some of the helpful changes that Mateusz Konieczny
> >just
> >>>> made, for better English style.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) I've removed the implication that de facto / approved are
> >>>> "recommended" and that "deprecated" / "discardable" etc. are "not
> >>>> recommended".
> >>>>
> >>>> I also removed the suggestion that "de facto" tags are supported by
> >>>> rendering / routing / editing software - while this is usually
> >true,
> >>>> it isn't what determines if a tag is given "de facto" status.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) I removed "obsolete" status from the list with
> >deprecated/discouraged.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I now think I figured out what this status is supposed to
> >>>> mean: it's supposed to be used for tags that were deprecated, but
> >now
> >>>> no longer even appear in the database, so the wiki page is only for
> >>>> historical information.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do we really need a special status for this, or should is it ok if
> >I
> >>>> retag the 6 tags with this status to "deprecated"?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Tag_descriptions_with_status_%22obsolete%22
> >>>>
> >>>> - Tag:abandoned=yes - recommended replacement abandoned:*=* - used
> >34,000
> >>>> times
> >>>> - Tag:amenity=Kneippbecken - approved replacement is
> >>>> amenity=kneipp_water_cure - used 0 times
> >>>> - Tag:man_made=power_hydro / Tag:man_made=power_nuclear /
> >>>> Tag:man_made=power_wind - use  power=generator, generator:source=*
> >>>> instead - used a couple of times only.
> >>>> - Tag:denotation=cluster - for special trees. Recommend to use
> >name=*
> >>>> instead with natural=tree. Had been down to 0 uses at one point,
> >but
> >>>> now there are a few hundred?
> >>> Gah! use name=* for something other than the name? No. Use the
> >description
> >>> key for that.
> >>> Edited wiki to remove this suggestion.
> >>>
> >>>> So only amenity=Kneippbecken and man_made=power_* really fit the
> >>>> "obsolete" status, though there are a number of tags currently with
> >>>> "deprecated" that are also no longer found in the database.
> >>>>
> >>> Once something has been 'depreciated' but now has little to no
> >presence then
> >>> 'obsolete' is a good status for it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Tagging mailing list
> >Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> >https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190729/cd00e361/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list