[Tagging] Deprecation - waterway=riverbank vs water=river

[Tomas Straupis]

2021-02-11, kt, 08:24 Marc Gemis <marc.gemis at gmail.com> rašė:
> 19 people participated in that vote. 16 voted in favour of the deprecation.

  I would add one more important thing about that infamous
proposal/vote of new water schema.

  Even if we exclude the criterias for expertise in important fields
as such thing is probably unverifiable.
  If there would have been a rule that proposer should have at least
two years of experience in OSM, water proposal would not have been
started at all.
  If there would have been a rule that proposer should have mapped at
least 100000 objects in OSM, water proposal would not have been
started at all.
  If those rules would have been applicable to voters... out of those
16 voting to depreciate hundreds of thousands of usages... well you
get the point ;-)

  So think about it: all this mess is because of people who have no
experience in fields important to OSM as well as no experience in OSM
itself. Is it a problem with those people? No, I'm 100% sure they
actually think they are doing something good. It is a problem with OSM
as it allows such things to happen. We need to safeguard against it.

-- 
Tomas