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

[Martin Machyna]

1) merging of the schemes

  argument in favor:

- more simple and unified database

- no need to maintain two schemes

- less confusing to new users

- OSM would look more professional and reliable to current and potential 
new adopters

- resolved violation of "one feature one tag" rule


argument against:

- Lithuanian tool would not work


2) which to keep

water=river:

- is approved

- Would unify water=* subtree for water covered areas and waterway=* for 
river network

- Is currently more popular


waterway=riverbank:

- is currently more numerous


On 12.2.21 10:38 , Marc_marc wrote:
> Le 12.02.21 à 16:18, Martin Machyna a écrit :
>> I don't see any advantage to keep both other than someone's personal
>> convenience.
> I think the debate should be splited in two, especially since at least
> one person is playing on both sides to say that at the same time there
> is no problem to have a fragmentation since all the tools manage both
> schemes and at the same time that it is very expensive to eliminate one
> of the 2 schemes because some of these own tools only manage one schéma.
>
> Unfortunately, apart from discussion, there is no way to make a 2-step
> proposal:
>
> 1) in favor or against the merging of the 2 schemes into a single one
>
> argument in favor: reducing the loss of human time, increasing coherence
> and therefore quality
>
> argument against:
> - communication (this is a point that needs to be improved) is obviously
> more time-consuming in the short term than the status quo.
> - tools managing only one of the 2 will see their defect even more
> visible depending on whether the remaining schema is the supported one
> or the other (and in my opinion, it is not a argument against so much to
> see the "design errors" rather than "if not too many complaints, do
> nothing").
> - the existing old books are frightening to some. (against argument:
> if you type a tag in any correct editor, it tells you that it is
> deprecated, so everyone knows how to update easily)
>
> argument neither for nor against: it will be necessary to carry out a
> mass operation so that the gain above can be made, I'm willing to take
> care of it.
>
> 2) to choose the new scheme on the basis of the advantages/disadvantages
> of each of them and no longer on the basis of "should fragmentation be
> maintained or not".
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging