[OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

Warin 61sundowner at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 07:51:18 UTC 2020


On 18/3/20 10:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
> Unlike some of those who responded, I was not intending this status to
> be a "mark of shame", but rather informative.

A 'mark of shame"? These are neither people or animals.
While a contributor may feel some attachment, once it is in OSM it is OSMs to deal with as it desires.

>
> As mentioned, some imported tags like "gnis:feature_id=*" are useful
> to keep the Openstreetmap database object directly linked to an object
> in an external database.
>
> That's why I am not suggesting the use of "deprecated" or "obsolete",
> since these tags should not necessarily be removed.

Depreciated and obsolete may too suggest a 'mark of shame'.

And depreciated and obsolete suggest there is a replacement, based on past practice. If there is a replacement, why is there this discussion?

There may not be a direct easy replacement for some and for the case I am thinking of a good deal more work is involved but it results in a better map.

I am thinking of landuse=clearing... originally mapped without any surrounding features.

>
> The main reason to mark them is so that mappers and database users
> will understand where the tag came from, and it may suggest that
> mappers will not want to add these tags to objects in the future,
> unless they are also importing features from the same source.

Or a similar source or activity.

>
> Besides the tags mentioned above, I was thinking about tags like
> "object:postcode=" and "object:housenumber" - this tag is only used in
> Germany on "highway=street_lamp" features which appear to have been
> imported mostly in 2015: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object
> and see taghistory:
> https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ and
>
> So, though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to
> know that these tags are not really being used, except in that
> particular context. Apparently it makes sense in the context of the
> addressing system there, at least according to the mappers who
> imported the objects.
>
> If a tag which was first used in an imported then becomes popular and
> used frequently by. mappers for new or updated features, then it could
> change to "in use" or even "de facto", just like a "draft" or
> "proposed" tag can change status due to usage over time.
>
> So, just like the status "draft", the status "import" would be a hint
> for mappers and database users, but would not suggest that the tag
> needs to be removed, and it might change status in the future based on
> use by mappers.
>
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>
> On 3/18/20, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
>> On 3/17/2020 10:52 AM, Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk wrote:
>>> However, among your examples you cite "gnis:feature_id=*" The wiki
>>> page for this key notes:
>>> "Unlike other imported tags such as gnis:created=* and
>>> gnis:import_uuid=*, gnis:feature_id=* is meaningful beyond the import.
>>> In fact, some mappers actively add gnis:feature_id=* to features to
>>> cite a verifiable source for the POI's existence or its name."
>> Agree with clemency for gnis:feature_id -- it's handy to be able to
>> crossreference features with the GNIS database, which you can search by
>> feature id here: https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:1:0:::::
>>
>> J
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200318/edda7a92/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the talk mailing list