[Talk-us-massachusetts] Imported node tags

[Greg Troxel]

"Wayne Emerson, Jr." <ibemerson at verizon.net> writes:

> I just joined this list today, and have only been mapping on OSM for a
> few months. So I have a few questions :
>
> 1.) While updating maps in my local area (MA South Shore) it seems
> that every node on every street has both source= and attribution=
> tags. Since the way itself already has these tags, is it really
> necessary for every node to have them as well? Is this true for the
> entire state? This would seem like a huge waste of database space.

No, it is not necessary at all.  Some day we will clean it up with a bot
edit.  Feel free to remove them as you edit, but please don't unleash
any automated edits, which need serious review because they can break
things at machine speed.

> 2.) While perusing last months archives for this list I see this:
> "Perhaps someone should tell them not to delete landuse=conservation;
> we have enough problems with mapbox." Have you guys seen the latest
> update to the iD editor? It throws up a huge warning if something is
> tagged with this and offers a one click fix, converting it to
> boundary=protected_area. I did a few this week, should I re-fix my
> fixes?

yes.  And file a bug with id please - they should not be doing that at
least in mass.  But that's probably a bit windmill tilting.

The basic issue is that landuse=conservation does not mean the same
thing as boundary=protected_area and a bunch of people I think mostly in
Europe do not want to understand that and hence there is this global
notion that they are equivalent.

boundary=protected_area is about a legal protection for use of the
land.  Often true in "conservation land".  landuse=conservation means
that the primary purpose of the land is to preserve it.  But that does
not require a CR or state legal protection.

The other issue is that while boundary=protected_area is really a tag
about an area, people are so bowled over by the word boundary that they
then want to render a green strip around the edge, rather than an area
fill like the other tags that have parallel structure (park, golf,
etc.).  Again there are these strange notions that appear consistent to
their proponents who adopt some protected area rules and codepoints as
the most important thing.

> 3.) What other problems do we have with Mapbox?

having their clients not attribute, but that's not a mass thing.