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 <jm...@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
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
