[Tagging] Is landuse=conservation actually deprecated?

[stevea]

Contrary to what people might believe about me "pushing" boundary=protected_area (I am a co-author of the Park boundary proposal — and it is only a proposal right now, in draft form — this would "boost" boundary=protected_area, I'll abbreviate that as "b=p_a" here) as a tag that might NOT include a protect_class (though this isn't required as part of the proposal), as what Greg says below about "no real discussion, no vote and no legitimacy," I am a bit confused.

I am not aware of an OSM conversation (or "movement") which is otherwise "pushing" b=p_a.  I ask (please) for some evidence of that so that I may read it, be aware of it and understand it.

I want to say "+1" here, but as that might be understood ambiguously, I'll say I support the continuing use of landuse=conservation (where appropriate) as well as boundary=protected_area (where appropriate, today, also with a protect_class tag).  I do not support "we aren't listening; you are wrong and we are going to revert...".  I also do not support this (or other) editor changes which promulgate wholesale deprecation of tagging, due to editors / tools whose user interface / user experience elements actively deprecate tags.  I characterize such "tool deprecation as highly aggressive behavior by editor authors as they do not properly vet such deprecations with the community.  Just because you author an editor does not mean that you get to deprecate tagging, it is only the community, though consensus, who should do that.

Greg's "landuse=conservation and b=p_a wikis pointing to each other..." solution seems entirely workable to me.  I entirely support that, as it seems correct as both "having been done before" and "going forward."

Greg:  I implore you and others who feel strongly about this to please reconsider "stop"ping your participation in our project, as I feel confident we can solve these issues.  Being a person who is involved in at least some of the issues (as a proposal author of a relevant issue, frequent contributor to wiki and mail-lists, a participant in Mappy Hours, a speaker at national conferences...) I am optimistic we can reach a solution that includes wide consensus.

SteveA

On Dec 25, 2020, at 5:37 PM, Greg Troxel <gdt at lexort.com> wrote:
>  I have always felt that the deprecation was by fiat of the people
>  pushing boundary=protected_area, with no real discussion, no vote, and
>  no legitimacy.
> 
>  The entire situation o this alleged deprecation has felt nasty
>  socially to at least me and I think others in Massachusetts where we
>  have been using landuse=conservation for a long time.  Basically "we
>  aren't listening; you are wrong, and we are going to revert your local
>  mapper work that follows local consensus".
> 
>  It is a real problem that this alleged deprecation has made its way
>  into editors, which combined with non-local paid editors amounts to a
>  mechanical edit removing thoughtful tagging by on-then-ground locals.
> 
>  At least some renders show landuse=conservation.  The wiki should
>  document existing use.  I am entirely fine with a "see also
>  boundary=protected_area; land that is landuse=conservation is likely
>  (but not necessarily) a protected_area".  Plus the corresponding back
>  pointer.
> 
> While there are many pluses and minuses to continuing to participate in
> OSM, overall this situation is at the top of my list of reasons to stop.
> 
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging