[Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:
> I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
> I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures 
> still existing today.
> I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same 
> time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not say 
> what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the settlement 
> key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with values yes and no.
> 
> As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are in 
> actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone would 
> start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is postponed 
> till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think it is not 
> necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not principal. It's 
> just not big enough.
> 
> Peter Elderson
> 
> 
> Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>>:
> 
> 
>     On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
>      > Hello,
>      >
>      > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>      >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
>      >
>      > me :)
>      >
>      > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
>      > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
>      > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
>      > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
>      >
>     Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
>     vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. There
>     is a place on the "B Ark" for them...
> 
>     The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
>     discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
>     these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
>     should
>     probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
>     https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog
>     <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog>
>     (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
>     https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog
>     <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog>
>     matters
>     little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word "crannog"
>     is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped into
>     some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.
> 
>     What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s currently
>     in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.
> 
>     Best Regards,
> 
>     Andy
> 
>     * We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
>     https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230 <https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230>
> 
> 
>     ** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were apparently
>     as many as 1200 in Ireland.
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging