Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

today I noticed some minor historic ruins and wonder whether you would consider 
this an archaeological site?
https://twitter.com/dieterdreist/status/1582130246769610753?s=46=pMmPcybaZu9zOoWBrbE_Eg

Cheers Martin ___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Depends entirely on the our hopefully to come definition of
"archaeological site". But I don't have a solution for it yet either.
But I definitely think that some of the features mapped merely as
"historic" should be mapped as archaeological sites just because of the
state they're in. I would think that - without having looked at them on
satellite view most of the "historic=city" and "historic=town" are
actually archaeological sites, because otherwise all cities and towns in
the world are more or less historic. Unless one only maps the "old town"
part of the town as "historic" which is still inhabited.

I'd say most of the historic=shieling I would classify as archaeological
sites, but I can't give a good definition why. I would suspect them to
be in ruins, but I'm only guessing that from the booleys (roughly the
same thing) in Ireland. I think there is an annual archaeological summer
school at the one on Achill Island anyway (https://achill-fieldschool.com/).

Anne

On 17/10/2022 20:01, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:


sent from a phone


On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel  wrote:

Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
my findings which might give food for thought:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164

which alternative of the 3 available would you prefer?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 17 Oct 2022, at 20:30, Anne-Karoline Distel  wrote:
> 
> Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
> amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
> my findings which might give food for thought:
> 
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164

which alternative of the 3 available would you prefer?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying
amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of
my findings which might give food for thought:

https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164

(I hope you like footnotes...:-) )

Anne

On 07/10/2022 11:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:

who cares for "in use" or "approved", the question is only whether
there are alternative tags available, in which case you either have to
decide or put both.
The voting isn't binding, at most it could be relevant if there is an
alternative value for the same key.

So while this could be seen as a conceptual problem, it does not
really matter IMHO for actual tagging.
In practice I would not "approve" the whole chain up, just because one
particular value was approved, and if I were the proponent of this
tag, I would use it also if it got rejected, unless it was rejected by
other people familiar with the domain or area where these occur, and
they would propose a better alternative.

Also because you cannot rely on the information given in the wiki. I
just changed the "site_type" key to de facto, because this is what it
is. Furthermore also site_type=settlement could be seen as de-facto,
but I did not make this edit immediately because I see there is maybe
some more wiggle room to see it still as "only" in significant use
(3600 times) without alternatives proposed as far as I can see.

Cheers,
Martin

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

Anne,

Being myself one of those problem cases, I'm glad to write up a proposal 
on Monday!


Thanks for at least pretending to keep an optimistic spirit. And yes, 
it's probably best to treat yourself to a drink!


On 08/10/2022 06:39, Warin wrote:


On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:


Hello all,

thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little 
frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion 
period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather 
than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only 
coming out with your opinion now, because it was announced here and on 
the weeklyOSM.




You are not the only one to have this occur. Many of us, me included 
have the same thing.


Typical reasons for me are ... 'too busy' .. 'I'll get to that later' 
etc Apologizes.  At least most of yours look to be on the tagging list?


As so many things, yes, the settlement and site_type group of tags is 
a mess. I tried to tidy up the settlement and related tags before I 
started my proposal, though.  And yes, we do have two different uses 
for settlement_type, as I have laid out on the page 
. I would 
propose that where it is not used in an archaeological sense, that the 
few cases (related to the earthquake in Haiti maybe?) be changed to 
settlement:origin=planned/ spontaneous/ unspecified or something like 
that.


I chose settlement_type as a parallel use to fortification_type which 
was established long before I started mapping heritage in Ireland 
afaik, so I was only trying my best to follow an established pattern.




'type' has been used all over the place. That does not make it a 'good' 
word to use. As you have seen it leads to the tag being used for things 
other than intended.


The mess with defensive_settlement=crannog is my fault - I had created 
a preset for JOSM and forgotten to adapt it after retracting that 
proposal. I've cleaned up that mess now. I meant to wait until this 
proposal was approved, in case it got rejected.


If anyone wants to start a proposal for site_type, please be my guest.



Not I. However I would think instead of site_type=* the key should be 
archaeological_site=* ?



I note that settlements are already on the values for the key historic, 
e.g farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where people lived. So 
historic=crannog would 'work'?


If people say they are archaeological sites then why not the above farm, 
manor, monastery, castle etc???



Cheers,

Anne



Good luck. May need a strong drink.


On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures 
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same 
time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not 
say what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the 
settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with 
values yes and no.


As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are 
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone 
would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is 
postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think 
it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not 
principal. It's just not big enough.


Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend >:



    On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
    Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
    vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. 
There

    is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

    The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
    discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
    these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
    should
    probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog

    (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

On 08/10/2022 05:39, Warin wrote:



On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:
I note that settlements are already on the values for the key
historic, e.g farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where
people lived. So historic=crannog would 'work'?

If people say they are archaeological sites then why not the above
farm, manor, monastery, castle etc???


Personally, I use historic=castle/ church/ creamery for ones that are in
ruins (wall(s) still standing in combination with building=ruins), not
ones that are archaeological sites (mostly ground level or below
ground). And crannogs, because of their material, tend to be
archaeological sites rather than ruins.

I'm not totally opposed to cutting out the "settlement" bit; maybe I
just like to categorize things more than other people.

Anne


Cheers,

Anne



Good luck. May need a strong drink.


On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the
same time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also
does not say what kind of categorisation is used for the values.
But the settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something
else, with values yes and no.

As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If
anyone would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current
vote is postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think,
but I think it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about
this, not principal. It's just not big enough.

Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:


    On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
    Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
    vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no
value*. There
    is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

    The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
    discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care)
what
    these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
    should
    probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog

    (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog

    matters
    little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word
"crannog"
    is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be
remapped into
    some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.

    What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s
currently
    in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.

    Best Regards,

    Andy

    * We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230




    ** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were
apparently
    as many as 1200 in Ireland.


    ___
    Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8 Oct 2022, at 06:43, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I note that settlements are already on the values for the key historic, e.g 
> farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where people lived.


none of these are necessarily settlements on their own though, some might be if 
isolated and could be, but the other would only be part of a settlement, not 
constitute one alone

Cheers Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Warin]

On 8/10/22 04:54, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:


Hello all,

thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little 
frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion 
period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather 
than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only 
coming out with your opinion now, because it was announced here and on 
the weeklyOSM.




You are not the only one to have this occur. Many of us, me included 
have the same thing.


Typical reasons for me are ... 'too busy' .. 'I'll get to that later' 
etc Apologizes.  At least most of yours look to be on the tagging list?


As so many things, yes, the settlement and site_type group of tags is 
a mess. I tried to tidy up the settlement and related tags before I 
started my proposal, though.  And yes, we do have two different uses 
for settlement_type, as I have laid out on the page 
. I would 
propose that where it is not used in an archaeological sense, that the 
few cases (related to the earthquake in Haiti maybe?) be changed to 
settlement:origin=planned/ spontaneous/ unspecified or something like 
that.


I chose settlement_type as a parallel use to fortification_type which 
was established long before I started mapping heritage in Ireland 
afaik, so I was only trying my best to follow an established pattern.




'type' has been used all over the place. That does not make it a 'good' 
word to use. As you have seen it leads to the tag being used for things 
other than intended.


The mess with defensive_settlement=crannog is my fault - I had created 
a preset for JOSM and forgotten to adapt it after retracting that 
proposal. I've cleaned up that mess now. I meant to wait until this 
proposal was approved, in case it got rejected.


If anyone wants to start a proposal for site_type, please be my guest.



Not I. However I would think instead of site_type=* the key should be 
archaeological_site=* ?



I note that settlements are already on the values for the key historic, 
e.g farm, manor, monastery, castle ... all places where people lived. So 
historic=crannog would 'work'?


If people say they are archaeological sites then why not the above farm, 
manor, monastery, castle etc???



Cheers,

Anne



Good luck. May need a strong drink.


On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures 
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same 
time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not 
say what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the 
settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with 
values yes and no.


As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are 
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone 
would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is 
postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think 
it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not 
principal. It's just not big enough.


Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend >:



    On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
    Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
    vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. 
There

    is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

    The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
    discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
    these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
    should
    probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog

    (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog

    matters
    little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word 
"crannog"
    is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be 
remapped into

    some 

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Anne-Karoline Distel]

Hello all,

thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little
frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion
period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather
than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only
coming out with your opinion now, because it was announced here and on
the weeklyOSM.

As so many things, yes, the settlement and site_type group of tags is a
mess. I tried to tidy up the settlement and related tags before I
started my proposal, though.  And yes, we do have two different uses for
settlement_type, as I have laid out on the page
. I would
propose that where it is not used in an archaeological sense, that the
few cases (related to the earthquake in Haiti maybe?) be changed to
settlement:origin=planned/ spontaneous/ unspecified or something like that.

I chose settlement_type as a parallel use to fortification_type which
was established long before I started mapping heritage in Ireland afaik,
so I was only trying my best to follow an established pattern.

The mess with defensive_settlement=crannog is my fault - I had created a
preset for JOSM and forgotten to adapt it after retracting that
proposal. I've cleaned up that mess now. I meant to wait until this
proposal was approved, in case it got rejected.

If anyone wants to start a proposal for site_type, please be my guest.

Cheers,

Anne

On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same
time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not
say what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the
settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with
values yes and no.

As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone
would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is
postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think
it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not
principal. It's just not big enough.

Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:


    On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
    Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
    vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*.
There
    is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

    The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
    discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
    these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
    should
    probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog

    (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog

    matters
    little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word
"crannog"
    is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped
into
    some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.

    What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s
currently
    in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.

    Best Regards,

    Andy

    * We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230




    ** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were
apparently
    as many as 1200 in Ireland.


    ___
    Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.

Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.


On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures 
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same 
time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not say 
what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the settlement 
key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with values yes and no.


As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are in 
actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone would 
start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is postponed 
till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think it is not 
necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not principal. It's 
just not big enough.


Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend >:



On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
 > Hello,
 >
 > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
 >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
 >
 > me :)
 >
 > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
 > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
 > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
 > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
 >
Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. There
is a place on the "B Ark" for them...

The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
should
probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog

(which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog

matters
little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word "crannog"
is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped into
some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.

What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s currently
in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.

Best Regards,

Andy

* We still don't know what bicycle=designated means

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230
 



** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were apparently
as many as 1200 in Ireland.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Peter Elderson]

I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures still
existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same time I
don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not say what kind
of categorisation is used for the values. But the settlement key ius
already in (scarce) use for something else, with values yes and no.

As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are in
actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone would
start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is postponed till
after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think it is not necessary.
I think we can be practical about this, not principal. It's just not big
enough.

Peter Elderson


Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend :

>
> On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
> >> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
> >
> > me :)
> >
> > approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
> > that people have spent time on it, that there has been
> > an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
> > it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
> >
> Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
> vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. There
> is a place on the "B Ark" for them...
>
> The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
> discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
> these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer) should
> probably "just map these".  Whether that's via
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog
> (which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog matters
> little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word "crannog"
> is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped into
> some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.
>
> What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s currently
> in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Andy
>
> * We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
>
> https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230
>
>
> ** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were apparently
> as many as 1200 in Ireland.
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

I disagree with this:
"people who have only the vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on"

- Yes, most people probably don't know a lot about archeology. I assume 
this is the reason why participation was so low.


- However, anybody can judge whether they find it sensible to approve a 
tag before the key itself or the parent tags is approved. You don't need 
to know anything about archeology for this.



On 07/10/2022 13:02, Andy Townsend wrote:


On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

who cares for "in use" or "approved"


me :)

approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
that people have spent time on it, that there has been
an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented

Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the 
vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. There 
is a place on the "B Ark" for them...


The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of 
discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what 
these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer) should 
probably "just map these".  Whether that's via 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog 
(which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog matters 
little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word "crannog" 
is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped into 
some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.


What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s currently 
in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.


Best Regards,

Andy

* We still don't know what bicycle=designated means 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230


** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were apparently 
as many as 1200 in Ireland.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Andy Townsend]

On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

who cares for "in use" or "approved"


me :)

approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
that people have spent time on it, that there has been
an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented

Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the 
vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*. There 
is a place on the "B Ark" for them...


The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of 
discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what 
these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer) should 
probably "just map these".  Whether that's via 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog 
(which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or 
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog matters 
little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word "crannog" 
is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped into 
some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.


What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s currently 
in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.


Best Regards,

Andy

* We still don't know what bicycle=designated means 
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230 



** According to wikipedia.  I was surprised that there were apparently 
as many as 1200 in Ireland.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

It seems the discussion about this proposal is only starting now.

This is unfortunate. It should have happened earlier and might cause 
frustration with the proposal author. Really sorry for that -- this is 
not ideal.


But still better to fix some major issues to improve the proposal than 
approving it in a sub-perfect state.




On 07/10/2022 12:27, Marc_marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

who cares for "in use" or "approved"


me :)

approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
that people have spent time on it, that there has been
an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
a new tag, then another one received the proposal by autocompletion
in iD and in the end we have many cases of a poorly named tag (I think 
of the suffix _type which doesn't mean anything) or poorly defined

or poorly integrated with other tags (just see the saga of fountains
or forest)

Regards,
Marc



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

Same opinion as Marc.

On 07/10/2022 12:27, Marc_marc wrote:

Hello,

Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

who cares for "in use" or "approved"


me :)

approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
that people have spent time on it, that there has been
an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
a new tag, then another one received the proposal by autocompletion
in iD and in the end we have many cases of a poorly named tag (I think 
of the suffix _type which doesn't mean anything) or poorly defined

or poorly integrated with other tags (just see the saga of fountains
or forest)

Regards,
Marc



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Marc_marc]

Hello,

Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :

who cares for "in use" or "approved"


me :)

approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
that people have spent time on it, that there has been
an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
a new tag, then another one received the proposal by autocompletion
in iD and in the end we have many cases of a poorly named tag (I think 
of the suffix _type which doesn't mean anything) or poorly defined

or poorly integrated with other tags (just see the saga of fountains
or forest)

Regards,
Marc



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

who cares for "in use" or "approved", the question is only whether there
are alternative tags available, in which case you either have to decide or
put both.
The voting isn't binding, at most it could be relevant if there is an
alternative value for the same key.

So while this could be seen as a conceptual problem, it does not really
matter IMHO for actual tagging.
In practice I would not "approve" the whole chain up, just because one
particular value was approved, and if I were the proponent of this tag, I
would use it also if it got rejected, unless it was rejected by other
people familiar with the domain or area where these occur, and they would
propose a better alternative.

Also because you cannot rely on the information given in the wiki. I just
changed the "site_type" key to de facto, because this is what it is.
Furthermore also site_type=settlement could be seen as de-facto, but I did
not make this edit immediately because I see there is maybe some more
wiggle room to see it still as "only" in significant use (3600 times)
without alternatives proposed as far as I can see.

Cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

I've briefly screened the wiki for voting and couldn't find anything on 
that matter.


I'll revert my vote, sorry.

Anne, as commented in my original vote, I really appreciate your work on 
this. But let's try to get this done in the proper order to avoid future 
conflicts.


By the way: I've raised the exact same concern in the Citadel Proposal, 
but only the proposal author seemed to notice:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Citadel


On 07/10/2022 11:06, stevea wrote:

On Oct 7, 2022, at 1:47 AM, Nathan Case  wrote:

If it's not appropriate then we end up in the situation where parent keys 
aren't approved but child keys/values are - which seems a little odd.


This is a remarkably astute observation (thanks, Nathan!) and raises darn good 
questions.  I agree it is odd and I wouldn’t like to see this become a trend.

Anne, I don’t think you meant to “back-door” such “lesser status” tags into 
OSM, I don’t attribute any nefariousness on your part, as these are 
somewhat-subtle (yet still important) issues.

martianfreeloader, while I’ve never done it and it would be unusual, I believe 
we are allowed to change our vote right up until the “closing of voting” 
period. I wouldn’t encourage this behavior, as it can be seen as manipulative, 
but an “honest overlook” like you’ve outlined here seems OK to me.  If other or 
some rule somewhere I’ve missed / am unaware of contradicts me, I’ll happily 
make it MY turn to redact my “seems OK to me.”  (I believe I have seen votes go 
from approve / oppose to abstain, but I’d have to check, and it’s still pretty 
rare).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[stevea]

On Oct 7, 2022, at 1:47 AM, Nathan Case  wrote:
> If it's not appropriate then we end up in the situation where parent keys 
> aren't approved but child keys/values are - which seems a little odd.

This is a remarkably astute observation (thanks, Nathan!) and raises darn good 
questions.  I agree it is odd and I wouldn’t like to see this become a trend.

Anne, I don’t think you meant to “back-door” such “lesser status” tags into 
OSM, I don’t attribute any nefariousness on your part, as these are 
somewhat-subtle (yet still important) issues.

martianfreeloader, while I’ve never done it and it would be unusual, I believe 
we are allowed to change our vote right up until the “closing of voting” 
period. I wouldn’t encourage this behavior, as it can be seen as manipulative, 
but an “honest overlook” like you’ve outlined here seems OK to me.  If other or 
some rule somewhere I’ve missed / am unaware of contradicts me, I’ll happily 
make it MY turn to redact my “seems OK to me.”  (I believe I have seen votes go 
from approve / oppose to abstain, but I’d have to check, and it’s still pretty 
rare).
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[martianfreeloader]

I agree, I wouldn't do this. -- But I've just voted before reading 
Nathan's mail. Can I revert my vote?



On 07/10/2022 10:47, Nathan Case wrote:

Hi Anne,

I don't have any objections about the tag specifically. But proposals 
like this do raise an interesting question.


Your proposal is for a specific value. However, the key itself 
"settlement_type" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:site_type) is 
only "in use". Further, the parent tag to this is "site_type=settlement" 
and both key and value are only "in use". The parent tag to that 
"historic=archaeological_site" is de facto.


If this particular (and likely quite low usage, by your own admission) 
tag is approved, what does that do to the complete tag hierarchy? Does 
everything in the hierarchy become approved too?


Is that appropriate - to set an approved status of a much more widely 
used hierarchy based on one (assumed to be) low-usage tag proposal? Do 
voters read up on the whole hierarchy when voting on a specific tag (if 
that hierarchy hasn't previously been approved)? Should they?


If it's not appropriate then we end up in the situation where parent 
keys aren't approved but child keys/values are - which seems a little 
odd. I note this situation has arisen previously (e.g. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/holy_well but 
place_of_worship=* as a key is still just "in use") but I'm not sure 
we've ever decided the ramifications of them.


Best,

Nathan






On 07/10/2022 08:11, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:

Voting has started on the crannog proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog

There was only one comment during the fortnight of discussion, so it
should be fairly forward. I know there are a lot of discussions about
more important tags going on at the moment, but maybe you can find a 
minute.


Anne


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] feature Proposal - Voting - settlement_type=crannog

[Nathan Case]

Hi Anne,

I don't have any objections about the tag specifically. But proposals 
like this do raise an interesting question.


Your proposal is for a specific value. However, the key itself 
"settlement_type" (https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:site_type) is 
only "in use". Further, the parent tag to this is "site_type=settlement" 
and both key and value are only "in use". The parent tag to that 
"historic=archaeological_site" is de facto.


If this particular (and likely quite low usage, by your own admission) 
tag is approved, what does that do to the complete tag hierarchy? Does 
everything in the hierarchy become approved too?


Is that appropriate - to set an approved status of a much more widely 
used hierarchy based on one (assumed to be) low-usage tag proposal? Do 
voters read up on the whole hierarchy when voting on a specific tag (if 
that hierarchy hasn't previously been approved)? Should they?


If it's not appropriate then we end up in the situation where parent 
keys aren't approved but child keys/values are - which seems a little 
odd. I note this situation has arisen previously (e.g. 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/holy_well but 
place_of_worship=* as a key is still just "in use") but I'm not sure 
we've ever decided the ramifications of them.


Best,

Nathan






On 07/10/2022 08:11, Anne-Karoline Distel wrote:

Voting has started on the crannog proposal:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/crannog

There was only one comment during the fortnight of discussion, so it
should be fairly forward. I know there are a lot of discussions about
more important tags going on at the moment, but maybe you can find a 
minute.


Anne


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging