[Tagging] no:XX versus not:XX for non-existing objects

[Tys vanZeyl]

Hi,
I have at the very least added `not:` to the existing similar concepts
section
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:no:#usage_of_(maybe)_similar_concepts>
of `no:` in the hope people will see that:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:no:&oldid=2199847
I would be in favor of depreciating 'no:' but the description of `no:`
seems clearer and more precise than that of `not:` so I'd like some
attention to be given to combining their descriptions on the `not:` page.
Thanks for pointing this out,
Tys

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 1:25 AM Jan Michel <jan at mueschelsoft.de> wrote:

> Dear all,
> we currently have two different prefixes for things that are not what
> they seem to be or might have been:
>
> no:XX
>         - 200 uses with 20 different keys
>         - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:no:
>         - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=no%3A
>
> not:XX
>         - 20k uses with 200 different keys
>         - https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:not:
>         - https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=not%3A
>
> Both Wiki pages read almost identical, with slightly different
> stress on objects that don't exist any more but are still visible on
> images versus objects that never existed but could be assumed to be
> there.
>
> I think the current situation with two almost identical tags is a bit
> unfortunate and should be resolved.
> I see two possible options here:
>
> - define the different scopes of the two tags more clearly and stress
>    the differences on both Wiki pages.
>
> - mark the less used 'no:' prefix as deprecated and favor the quite
>    common 'not:' prefix instead.
>
>
>
> Jan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210919/9c285046/attachment.htm>