[Tagging] Deprecation reasons - RFC

[Simon Poole]

Am 25.01.2022 um 15:22 schrieb Brian M. Sperlongano:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:55 AM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>
>     Am 25.01.2022 um 10:27 schrieb Florian LAINEZ:
>
>>     ..
>>     1. The deprecation definition is currently formalized and well
>>     described
>>     <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features>: "A
>>     deprecated tag or deprecated feature is tagging that is
>>     recommended by OpenStreetMap community consensus for removal and
>>     replacement with other tagging."
>>     Therefore I don't understand when you say that "it's not a formal
>>     concept".
>>     I don't aim to change that definition at all. My only proposal is
>>     to better define the reasons behind a deprecation.
>     ...
>
>     That is text that was added by Brian just over a year ago.
>
>     Anybody can add literally anything to the wiki, doing so doesn't
>     make a concept formalized, a consensus or anything. You can argue
>     that stuff on the wiki that has weathered well over the years does
>     have some kind of standing, but given that essentially all wiki
>     changes are stealthy and fly under the radar, the time to achieve
>     such status needs to be a bit more than just a couple of months back.
>
> ...and after a year plus and over 30 subsequent edits yet it remains.  
> I encourage anyone with better words to describe our reality to add 
> them.  There are plenty of people that complain about what's on the 
> wiki or jawbone on the mailing lists, but far fewer willing to roll up 
> their sleeves and take their best shot at documenting the status quo.  
> That said, I'm not sure what this phrase "formal concept" even means 
> that you folks are throwing around.  Do you mean "approved by a person 
> or organizational entity in a position of authority on the matter"?  
> By that definition, of course, there are no formal concepts at all in 
> OSM and it's disingenuous to even argue the point.
>
> I also agree with Mateusz that a number of the rationales listed for 
> deprecation are problematic and vague and would not be appropriate to 
> include as part of a description of what deprecation means.  Even more 
> strange are the numeric codes listed for each deprecation reason - for 
> what purpose could that possibly be useful or wanted?  (this is 
> rhetorical - I'm not looking for a response here).  I am hoping that 
> the original author will consider the negative reactions received here 
> on this list as a signal of community opposition to the idea rather 
> than an invitation to continue arguing the point.
>
I didn't actually say if I agreed or didn't with your wording.

What I do disagree with is using it as proof that there is a formal 
process for deprecation. There is just a consultation process on new 
tagging that you take however you want, sneaking "deprecation" into 
proposals doesn't make it even a bit more binding..

And if there was a formal deprecation process it would need massive 
amounts of hysteresis (lets say 2-3 orders of more votes than in tagging 
consultation). Tagging stability is a value in itself and willy-nilly 
churning through tagging variants because of minor imperfections doesn't 
add any value and makes lives more difficult than necessary for data 
consumers and isn't good for the project as a whole.

Simon


> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220125/958f70d9/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: OpenPGP_signature
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 495 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220125/958f70d9/attachment-0001.sig>