[Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

Sat Oct 8 16:30:04 UTC 2022

Anne,

Being myself one of those problem cases, I'm glad to write up a proposal 
on Monday!

Thanks for at least pretending to keep an optimistic spirit. And yes, 
it's probably best to treat yourself to a drink!

On 08/10/2022 06:39, Warin wrote:
> 
> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging