[Tagging] Is shelter=separate wanted? What is the meaning of shelter=yes
matkoniecz at tutanota.com
Tue Jan 12 10:25:10 UTC 2021
Jan 12, 2021, 11:04 by stefan.tauner at gmx.at:
> On Tue, 12 Jan 2021 10:38:05 +0100 (CET)
> Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
>> The problem is that there is not even plan to how handle over half million
>> just redefined shelter=yes, many of them retroactively made incorrect
> I see your point.
>> In this case I see no reason to redefine existing tag and introduce more work for
> Well, eventually we have to go through them all anyway (or have this
> tag redundantly remain for backwards compatibility) but I am with you.
> The change makes the situation worse.
> Still, the hint to the relation should be added ;)
> And we should discuss if we should introduce something like separated
> but without changing the meaning of =yes. There should be a way to
> distinguish the legacy/current meaning "yes, there is a shelter
> associated with this stop - either tagged separately or not" and "yes,
> there is one but it is separately mapped (and part of the
> public_transport=stop_area relation)".
> We could re-use the "separate" value for that and verify the bunch of
> existing usages.
Yes, shelter=separate would make a bit more sense if there would
be some way to distinguish =yes from
"using it in standard way, shelter may exist or not" from
"shelter is definitely not mapped as a separate "
> And apparently that is what you have already decided during our
> discussion here? That previous change was in July. Thanks for fixing it
> but I don't really appreciate doing this while it is being discussed...
If it is wrong/controversial it may be easily reverted or changed.
Note that if changes to Wiki cannot be made during discussion
then it strongly discourages asking for feedback on tagging
I would need to setup some reminder system
and keep checking whatever discussion continues and
only after that reread entire discussion again...
And I spend more time on editing OSM Wiki than I should
but I am not so motivated.
What is wrong with adding what seems consensus based
on early comments and later editing it further?
OSM Wiki is not set in stone and for parts where there is
agreement it makes sense to update it, rather than starting
long discussion, not documenting anything and repeating
it say year later
It is really surprising to me that people extremely rarely
update wiki based on what become clear in discussion
- tagging mailing comments/thread are hard to find
and basically always will be forgotten.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging