[Tagging] Feature Proposal - rejected - camp_site=camp_pitch

[marc marc]

Le 23.05.19 à 12:22, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> tourism=camp_pitch (not because I like this, but because fixing one issue (avoid conflit with tourism=camp_site + camp_site=basic/standard/serviced/deluxe) is better than fixing none of them.

> Please do not retag features to an unapproved, undocumented tag.

no coherent documented tag exist for pitch&part, what do you propose ?
freeze until an approved proposal ?
some propals are outstanding since years

we hesitate to create/document new/temporary tags
for the 2 usecases discovered so far.
we thought, however, that this would add further confusion
to the confusion given the too many proposals and different
tags for the same thing.
which would result in https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png
it will not be an issue to tag them with the final schema when it exists

> Mechanical edits are discouraged, even if you are doing them by hand.

we didn't made a mechanical edits, we have loaded them,
check the context, check imagery, check other tag.
it's how 2 differents usecase have been found.

> I'd be willing to make a proposal page for tourism=camp_pitch 
> it sounds like you don't actually like this tag?

right now I think the situation is too confusing
how do you decide the meaning of current tourism=camp_pitch objects? 
it's impossible without reviewing a large number of them to see what 
they correspond to. it's the goal of our approach. except that
we didn't just look, we improved what we thought could be easily
improved (toilets, entrances, camp_site=* approved meaning, ...)
no one imagined anyone would disapprove that...

but I'll pass on your opinion that you don't like our use
of tourism=camp_pitch until it's voted on.
we can create/modify wiki page with all the different meanings 
encountered for every tag if you want, I think however that documenting 
the magnitude of the problem will be an additional argument against
what seemed to be the only solution, if done step-by-step, with human
review due to the multi-meaning that currently exist in all tag/value.

Regards,
Marc