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

Volker Schmidt voschix at gmail.com
Thu Feb 11 15:40:39 UTC 2021


The waterway=riverbank wiki page has at present no reference to the
deprecation of 2011.
It carried deprecation remarks in 2015 and until January 2016.
Reading the old comments, that deprecation of 2011 has not been reflected
in the wiki, and people were unhappy with it already in the past.
Can we please leave things as they are de facto: we have a JOSM tagging and
an ID tagging for exactly the same thing. Both have more than 100k
uses..Renderers and other data consumers got used to this situation. There
is no need to eliminate one or the other.
We are wasting really a lot of time on useless discussions. We have to
opposing schools of thought: Many think the wiki describes the actual
usage, and from that derives advice for new mappers, and others think that
the wiki is an instrument to regulate the tagging, including the voting
process that is based on a rather arbitrary procedure, and allows very
small groups of people to change things without very much control. I guess
that the voting process was originally invented to steer new tags in the
correct direction, also there is no mention in the original wiki page on
the motivation, but which is now also being used to modify existing tags on
a large scale.






On Thu, 11 Feb 2021 at 16:09, <mail at marcos-martinez.net> wrote:

> I fear the debate is slightly derailing and although I am not completely
> happy with Manday's tone either I agree with his message. We are trying to
> have a constructive debate and if arguments need to be repeated - so be it.
> People involved in OSM change and not everybody, new or not, should be
> requested to study our complete debate history before starting a thread,
> neither having to accept advice written in this tone from an apparently
> "higher" place. I am sure real newbies reading this kind of mail are
> completely repelled.
>
> I kindly suggest to either contribute with arguments, even though
> repeated, or references to other debates with the clear goal to find a
> solution because the thread is aiming to exactly that: Avoid having a
> duplication of tags describing the exact same thing.
>
> Cheers, Marcos
>
> Am 11.02.2021 15:39, schrieb manday at openmail.cc:
>
> Instead of "wasting communication bandwidth for everyone" with a lot  of
> unsolicited advice about attitudes and whatnot, you could have  elaborated
> those arguments which you said were not presented, or at  least point to a
> reference.
>
> It may surprise you, but I did actually not start this thread for my
>  personal benefit (crazy, I know!), but rather because it was suggested
>  that I present my opinion (you call this "made up my mind of what the
>  discussion should be") here for discussion.
>
> Have a good day.
>
> And next time you want to speak in this tone, please write off-list,  as
> it would be proper etiquette.
>
> Quoting Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de>:
>
> On Thursday 11 February 2021, manday at openmail.cc wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> I would like to point out that no argument other than the ~100k
> difference for removing `water=river` in favor of `riverbank` has
> been presented. [...]
>
>
> I have no interest in engaging in this discussion which is a reiteration
> of a discussion we have already had countless times on this list and
> elsewhere.  But since you seem to be new here (and probably new to OSM
> in general) a little piece of advice:
>
> Do not conclude from the fact that people do not engage in a discussion
> with you that there are no arguments against your views of things.
> That people do not present you arguments only means that they don't
> think presenting them would have any benefit.  As Frederik recently
> mentioned repeating the same points over and over again just wastes
> communication bandwidth for everyone.  Not to mention this English
> language mailing list is only a small and highly selective cutout from
> the global OSM community.
>
> Why it is a good idea to make the distinction between standing inland
> waterbodies and flowing inland water as a distinction in primary
> tagging has been explained many times over the years.  You either
>
> * know this and accept this being a valid reason for a distinction in
> primary tagging between lakes and riverbank polygons.
> * know this and reject the relevancy of this distinction.  Then
> repeating that point again will not make a difference.
> * don't know this (because you are new to OSM or to the topic of
> waterbody mapping and tagging).  Then you should not start off a
> discussion clearly stating you have already made up your mind what the
> results of the discussion should be.  Instead the prudent thing to do
> is asking - with an open mind - why people prefer tagging riverbank
> polygons with waterway=riverbank or natural=water respectively.  Then
> you would probably have received an explanation for both sides.  And
> even if you did not it would still be prudent (and also advisable under
> the principle of "assume good faith") to assume that those who prefer
> waterway=riverbank (as evidenced by its ongoing use) have a good reason
> for that.
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> This free account was provided by VFEmail.net - report spam to
> abuse at vfemail.net
>
>
> ONLY AT VFEmail! - Use our Metadata Mitigator to keep your email out of the NSA's hands!
> $24.95 ONETIME Lifetime accounts with Privacy Features!  15GB disk! No
> bandwidth quotas!
> Commercial and Bulk Mail Options!
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210211/89375f2c/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list