[Tagging] Do we need more different tagging for telephone covers?

Paul Allen pla16021 at gmail.com
Thu Jun 4 14:43:26 UTC 2020


On Thu, 4 Jun 2020 at 14:55, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <
tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

>
> Jun 4, 2020, 14:51 by pla16021 at gmail.com:
>
>
> The author of iD is one of the mappers who doesn't like it.  So much so
> that he
> removed that option from the preset for phone=*.  Unless you can persuade
> him to change his mind (you can't) then you can forget using covered=*
> because
> unless editors support it, few mappers will use it.
>
> iD is just one of editors.
>

But the one that most newbies encounter first.  And continue to use.

If there are good arguments for that decision it should be considered.
>

I can see his reasoning and agree with it in the general case.  What I found
disturbing about this one is that there were only a handful of values and
little
sign mappers were accidentally using inapplicable values.  What I found even
more disturbing was him bypassing the tagging list.

> You're not going to change his mind
> on that, so forget about using covered=*.
>
> If arguments are good one - then OK. But I see no reason to capitulate
> and change tagging scheme just because currently deployed default editor
> has a mistake in presets (like iD claiming that there are no paved or
> maintained highway=track)
>

Unless you pay very close attention you don't notice when these changes are
introduced.  I suspect iD does more to change tagging practises than this
list
does.

-- 
Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200604/5c374aba/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list