[OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

[Tomas Straupis]

> I am generally against such harsh measures, if a new way to tag
> has advantages, it has them even if only 20% of applicable objects
> are tagged with it. And 20% endorsement isn't actually a fail IMHO.

  So after a new scheme to tag X is introduced we have two schemes
valid at the same time and if the new one only gets 20% in two years
you suggest to continue with TWO ways to map THE SAME thing? How would
you explain this to data consumers?

>> P.S. This only influences proposals which are CHANGING tagging.
> so it would not apply to the water tag, because it doesn't change
> tagging but is an amendment?

  Water proposal tried to change the tagging:
  landuse=reservoir => natural=water|water=reservoir
  And in general all water landuse=x => natural=water|water=x (basin, pond etc.)
  waterway=riverbank => natural=water|water=riverbank

  So after successful change we would have had no landuse=reservoir
and waterway=riverbank. But we do and they are used much more often
than the new way even after FIVE years => thus proposition "failed".

> there are hardly any proposals that change tagging for changes sake.

  There will always be ideas on how tagging of X could be "improved"
by ones mind (think about renaming "highway" to "way"?). All changing
proposals are fixing something "here" and damaging something "there".
So my idea is to stop changing tags when number of tagged objects is
too large (as it was the case with reservoirs, riverbanks etc.)

-- 
Tomas