[Tagging] Feature proposal - Approved - deprecate embassy=embassy

[Mateusz Konieczny]

1) editing (as long as it it iterative improvement, not edit war) wiki during
discussion is a good idea.

The realistic alternative is waiting till everyone forgets about issue
and nothing is improved.

2) if you request not editing then you should not single out one person,
especially when they are not the sole editor.

3) if you disagree with claims being made (that deprecation of popular
tags are novel use of proposal process and it was not intended to be used
for that purposes) then a good counteargument would be listing old
proposals that included deprecations of popular tags and there was
no fundamental opposition to the basic idea of deprecation of popular tags
via proposal


Feb 4, 2022, 12:26 by s8evqq at runbox.com:

> Simon, could you please pause your editing of the Proposal process wiki page until the dust has somewhat settled on this discussion?
>
> Remember: the wiki isn't there to represent your view, but rather describe how reality is within OSM. If the proposal process is currently being used to deprecate features, than yes, that can be in the wiki.
>
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 09:52:31 +0100, Florian LAINEZ <winnerflo at free.fr> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for all your replies.
>>
>> I tried to discuss privately with Simon in order to find a common ground.
>> Nevertheless I had no reply at all and at the same time I see that Simon
>> changed the definition of deprecation to fit his view
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_process&diff=next&oldid=2256141
>> Now I feel really sorry about how this public discussion is evolving and as
>> I don't see any good coming from it soon, I think it's time for me to step
>> back for a while.
>>
>> I will think of a proposal that could fit our different point of views with
>> the help of the french community.
>> I am sure that we will all succeed to change the project in the right
>> direction as long as we remain constructive.
>> Regards
>>
>>
>> Le ven. 4 févr. 2022 à 02:38, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> a écrit :
>>
>> >
>> > Am 04.02.2022 um 01:05 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick:
>> >
>> > ...
>> > So, it doesn't appear to have ever been discussed on here, or voted on, &
>> > from the comments on that page, should never have been an amenity= in the
>> > first place, but what do we now do to "fix" it?
>> > ...
>> >
>> > Why would it need to be fixed?
>> >
>> > The overwhelming majority of users never see anything else than a "Dojo"
>> > label when adding/editing/whatever such facilities with the current
>> > tagging, and with a different tagging, they would just continue to see
>> > "Dojo". As long as the tagging is conflict free (in a technical sense) a
>> > change just doesn't provide any added value, only downsides. I could see an
>> > angle pro change if there were specific semantics associated with the
>> > tagging, so say water=dojo would probably not be a good idea, but moving
>> > things around in facility tags just doesn't do anything.
>> >
>> > BTW it is no different with parcel lockers, the large majority of  users
>> > had previously added and manipulated these as "Parcel lockers", and guess
>> > what, they continue to remain "Parcel lockers".
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Tagging mailing list
>> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> >
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> *Florian Lainez*
>> @overflorian <http://twitter.com/overflorian>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220204/6fb9f881/attachment.htm>