Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

>> 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 > No. > The water proposal didn't change or

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

Tomas Straupis wrote: > 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 No. The water proposal didn't

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On 2016년 06월 22일 18:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > 2016-06-22 10:49 GMT+02:00 Max >: > > I did not see any > voting. > how? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-22 13:18 GMT+02:00 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

> 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

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-22 10:49 GMT+02:00 Max : > I did not see any > voting. > maybe you should have started it then ;-) Cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On 21/06/16 22:44, Greg Troxel wrote: > I don't see any reason why this can't be > > landuse=reservoir [entire parcel that has the reservoir on it, or the > region that has "water supply area - no trespassing" signs, etc.]] > > water=reservoir [the water part] That makes a lot more sense

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

the whole process is too opaque. Also there are different protagonists posting on wiki and email list. The gallery tag clarification stalled, because what looked like a consensus on the email list had one loud opponent on the wiki and not many other voices. I did not see any voting. IMHO the

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On 6/22/2016 4:17 PM, Tomas Straupis wrote: My question/proposal was about what to do with failed proposals in general. That is: 1. How to identify a "failed" proposal 2. What to do with it My proposal for point 1 is: If after say two years new schema does not get at least equal tagging count

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

sent from a phone > Il giorno 22 giu 2016, alle ore 08:17, Tomas Straupis > ha scritto: > > My question/proposal was about what to do with failed proposals in > general. That is: > 1. How to identify a "failed" proposal > 2. What to do with it > > My proposal for

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

My question/proposal was about what to do with failed proposals in general. That is: 1. How to identify a "failed" proposal 2. What to do with it My proposal for point 1 is: If after say two years new schema does not get at least equal tagging count as the old schema - proposal failed. My

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

Martin Koppenhoefer writes: > sent from a phone > >> Il giorno 20 giu 2016, alle ore 12:04, Tomas Straupis >> ha scritto: >> >> My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse" > > > why would that be desirable?

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

>> My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse" > why would that be desirable? There will always be more than one opinion on which naming of tags is "better" because there is no "universal best way" (unless it's "42"). What I'm striving for is STABILITY for

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 17:30 GMT+02:00 Lester Caine : > The simple fact is that there is not a consistent structure for > identifying 'landcover' on OSM and even natural=wood and landuse=forest > make it difficult to decide what is naturally occurring and what is man > made. >

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On 20/06/16 15:38, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >> > Il giorno 20 giu 2016, alle ore 12:04, Tomas Straupis >> > ha scritto: >> > >> > My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse" > > why would that be desirable? Basically landuse is a

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

sent from a phone > Il giorno 20 giu 2016, alle ore 12:04, Tomas Straupis > ha scritto: > > My main point is to get back to reservoir/basin being tagged as "landuse" why would that be desirable? Basically landuse is a property of land, and generally it's not very

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

> You need to decide if you want to abolish the water=* or if you just > prefer using waterway=riverbank instead of natural=water + > water=river - which does not in any way conflict with the water=* tag. Once again: I do not want to abolish water=*. My main point is to get back to

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On Monday 20 June 2016, Tomas Straupis wrote: > > > > If you want to eliminate use of water=* from OSM you'd need to > > convince the community of this. A formal proposal can be used but > > without convincing arguments on the matter this stands little > > chance in being approved. > > I do not

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On Monday 20 June 2016, you wrote: > > I'd like to add to this that on a semantic / natural language level, > waterway=riverbank (deliberately ignoring long standing, widespread > use and acceptance) would seem to indicate a riverbank, i.e. the bank > of a river, or in other words, the area along

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 11:29 GMT+02:00 Tomas Straupis : > My main point is that existing tagging (especially widely used one) > should not be changed unless it gives some ontological benefit (new > features/properties being added, features split etc.). > actually you do not have

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 11:34 GMT+02:00 Tomas Straupis : > > actually the way it was before HAD big issues, you could not even state > if > > something was a lake or just the basin of a fountain (most kind of water > > areas just mapped as natural=water). > > Everything what can be

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

> actually the way it was before HAD big issues, you could not even state if > something was a lake or just the basin of a fountain (most kind of water > areas just mapped as natural=water). Everything what can be mapped with new water schema can be (and is) mapped with old schema. The

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 11:14 GMT+02:00 Tomas Straupis : > I do not want to „eliminate“ water=* > I want to go back to the situation before the water proposal - with > landuse=reservoir, waterway=riverbank, landuse=basin, etc. etc. As it > used to be, and as it was and is still

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

> I'd like to add to this that on a semantic / natural language level, > waterway=riverbank (deliberately ignoring long standing, widespread use and > acceptance) would seem to indicate a riverbank, i.e. the bank of a river, or > in other words, the area along a river, which will occassionally but

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

> You are either deliberately or due to misinformation distorting things > here. The water=* is widely used and accepted, there are >700k uses in > line with the proposal (an additional 255k for the deprecated > water=intermittent). > > The waterway=riverbank tag is considered equivalent to

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-20 10:48 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann : > If you want to do something productive you could clean up the frequent > occurences of duplicate and sometimes contradicting tags on member ways > and multipolygon relations for river mapping. One of the problems of > the

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On Monday 20 June 2016, Tomas Straupis wrote: > 2016-06-19 23:35 GMT+03:00 Ilya Zverev: > > <...> the proposal about water=* was > > accepted by 16 mappers, and if you have a problem with that, then I > > agree that we should change our proposal process, but in all these > > years nobody has even

Re: [OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

On 20/06/16 08:54, Tomas Straupis wrote: > Accepted by 16(!) wiki editors but ignored by thousands of mappers. > 5 years after acceptance according to tagwatch: > "new" tag usage > water=reservoir 79937 > water=riverbank 1085 > > "old" tag usage > landuse=reservoir 387793 >

[OSM-talk] Failed water proposal reversal

2016-06-19 23:35 GMT+03:00 Ilya Zverev: > <...> the proposal about water=* was > accepted by 16 mappers, and if you have a problem with that, then I agree > that we should change our proposal process, but in all these years nobody > has even started. Accepted by 16(!) wiki editors but ignored