[Tagging] Is it OK to consider and describe landcover=water as deprecated?

Martin Machyna machyna at gmail.com
Sat Mar 6 15:57:33 UTC 2021


I personally would support the deprecation in this case, but I want to 
say that I don't like how this is done.

I protest that anyone can just go and change the tag's status on the 
wiki without discussion. What more I want to argue that any change other 
than to "status:proposed" should follow a formal proposal and vote as we 
do for any other case.

People here maybe take the wiki as descriptive of tagging, but for many 
members (particularly the newcomers) wiki servers as a guide how to tag. 
So when anyone changes the status to e.g. de facto also changes the 
tagging behavior of many. And then typically few years down the line 
people start arguing that the tag can't be deprecated, because people 
are "voting" by using it or that status:xyz is some kind of mark of quality.

So if you really want to change the status, then make a proposal (could 
be just a couple of sentences) and send it for vote and I have no 
problem to support it in that case.


On 6.3.21 1:47 , Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
> landcover=water is a tag
>
> duplicating more widely used tags such
> as natural=water, waterway=riverbank etc
>
> with minimal use
> (1038 uses worldwide, compared to say
> 11 040 604 of natural=water)
>
> It is unsupported by editors and data consumers
>
> In actual use it is accompanied by normal
> water tags
>
> It is useful only if someone is trying to
> deprecate natural=water (and many other
> natural/landuse/etc).
> And such mass deprecation has no
> support (such massive deprecation
> would require clear support and good plan
> that is not here).
>
> Overall, this tag sole use is to push
> landcover proposal.
>
> Can we consider this tag to be deprecated?
>
> Disclaimer: someone created Wiki page
> for that tag and described in a way
> suggesting that landcover tags are
> standard tagging in OSM.
>
> I edited it to describe it as a deprecated
> duplicate.
>
> I did it without discussion on tagging
> mailing list as situation was clear,
> given lack of real use, support, existing
> clear tagging and lack of anything
> supporting that tag.
>
> Yesterday someone edited to remove
> most of description as a pointless duplicate.
>
> PS I really, really want to avoid people
> doing "I am migrating tagging to
> landcover=water" and being able to
> justify it with Wiki page.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210306/2b6b0ea6/attachment.htm>


More information about the Tagging mailing list