[Tagging] spring:type=hot deprecation

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Sun Jan 10 10:15:41 UTC 2021

Jan 8, 2021, 08:59 by stefan.tauner at gmx.at:

> On Fri, 8 Jan 2021 08:17:20 +0100 (CET)
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> I set its status to deprecated as it
>> 1) was already described as deprecated ("Please use natural=hot_spring instead")
>> 2) competing tag is significantly more used
>> See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:spring:type%3Dhot
>> Feel free to revert that if someone disagrees
> I am not strictly rejecting this but here are my 2ct:
> There was a proposal for natural=hot_spring that was met with a lot of
> criticism and was never put to vote. The usage numbers are 1:20 but
> this has to put in perspective since iD has added support (only) for
> natural=hot_spring so it is not really surprising that it has
> significant more uses (I did not check though if chronology matches
> that assumption).
> Combined they have about 3500 uses. This is not prohibitively many to
> manually check and change them to spring:type=hot (I have done similarly
> laborious edits in the past). IMHO the only argument for not doing
> that, and/or trying to standardize spring:type are the support by some
> data users (I only know OSMand and that can easily be changed...).
> I personally think that natural=hot_spring is a mistake (I have no
> history with either of those tags whatsoever and only became aware of
> them by your email but it seems obvious to me after skimming through
> the proposal discussion).
Good points.

I have reverted setting deprecation status, set it to "in use",
removed claim that natural=hot_spring is strictly superior,
mentioned this tag as natural=hot_spring at its wiki page
and downgraded natural=hot_spring to "in use"

Though, if someones wants this tag to be used and win
with natural=hot_spring I would recommend making
proposal for it. Current trends are not good for it,
and it has no chance to win with natural=hot_spring
without something changing.

In this case going through 
seems the best idea, but maybe someone has a better idea.

(I am not planning to do this)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210110/0069a590/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list