[Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Sat Oct 8 04:39:24 UTC 2022

On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little 
> frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion 
> period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather 
> than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only 
> coming out with your opinion now, because it was announced here and on 
> the weeklyOSM.
>

You are not the only one to have this occur. Many of us, me included 
have the same thing.

Typical reasons for me are ... 'too busy' .. 'I'll get to that later' 
etc Apologizes.  At least most of yours look to be on the tagging list?

> As so many things, yes, the settlement and site_type group of tags is 
> a mess. I tried to tidy up the settlement and related tags before I 
> started my proposal, though.  And yes, we do have two different uses 
> for settlement_type, as I have laid out on the page 
> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:settlement_type>. I would 
> propose that where it is not used in an archaeological sense, that the 
> few cases (related to the earthquake in Haiti maybe?) be changed to 
> settlement:origin=planned/ spontaneous/ unspecified or something like 
> that.
>
> I chose settlement_type as a parallel use to fortification_type which 
> was established long before I started mapping heritage in Ireland 
> afaik, so I was only trying my best to follow an established pattern.
>

'type' has been used all over the place. That does not make it a 'good' 
word to use. As you have seen it leads to the tag being used for things 
other than intended.

> The mess with defensive_settlement=crannog is my fault - I had created 
> a preset for JOSM and forgotten to adapt it after retracting that 
> proposal. I've cleaned up that mess now. I meant to wait until this 
> proposal was approved, in case it got rejected.
>
> If anyone wants to start a proposal for site_type, please be my guest.
>

Not I. However I would think instead of site_type=* the key should be 
archaeological_site=* ?

I note that settlements are already on the values for the key historic, 
e.g farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where people lived. So 
historic=crannog would 'work'?

If people say they are archaeological sites then why not the above farm, 
manor, monastery, castle etc???

> Cheers,
>
> Anne
>

Good luck. May need a strong drink.

> On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20221008/77ba900c/attachment.htm>