Re: [Tagging] club=scout for similar organisations
On Fri, 1 Feb 2019 at 08:12, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > Both my sons went through the Australian Air Force Cadets > http://www.aafc.org.au/ > > It was emphasised that "The Australian Air Force Cadets (AAFC) is a youth > oriented organisation that is administered and actively supported by the > Royal Australian Air Force.", but they are NOT military in any way, with > the same applying to both Army & Navy Cadets. > > Once upon a time, Cadets was a way of starting early training for those > kids who were interested in a military career but that was stopped in the > 1980s - 90s, as the Government of the day apparently didn't want to be seen > to be turning children into war-mongers & trained killers! > > I don't know, but would assume that the same thing would apply for similar > groups in other countries? > > So they would also come under the heading of > club=youth > youth=* > Reading links fro one of the other threads posted this morning & found this https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:military#Cadet_training_buildings So maybe there should also be club=youth youth=cadet Thanks Graeme > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal
On Mon, Feb 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Past proposals are *always* useful knowledge, even if strong issues has been > pointed during voting or RFC. > I'm not in favor to delete anything, as to show a little respect to someone > who took time to make things better. At the very least, we want to preserve the discussion, and the rationale for why the idea was considered and rejected, or else the same idea will sooner or later be put forward again by someone ignorant of the history. Moreover, I'm all for documenting tags as soon as a mapper starts using them. The wiki page can (ought to?) indicate that the tags are unapproved, but we at least want to get a record of what the mapper intended. Unless we've abandoned https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like, we certainly should not forbid the use of unapproved tags. Moreover, the process of creating a proposal and seeing it through the discussion here is - I can relate from my personal experience - extremely intimidating and frustrating. (That's for good reason, and I applaud those who are passionate about making the best map possible, but ultimately "the perfect is the enemy of the good.") If unapproved tags for new feature classes cannot be used, it may be years before a mapper can add the features, and those features are likely not to be mapped because the mapper will simply abandon the project out of exhaustion or frustration. Clearly, we don't want to have mappers inventing their own tagging for existing common objects, but that tends to be self-correcting as soon as the mapper discovers that there is established tagging that renderers, routers and navigation systems already use. But for uncommon features that are likely not yet of broad interest, experimental tagging without first going through a "Mother, may I?" process is implicitly encouraged by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
On 04/02/19 21:04, Hufkratzer wrote: Somewhere (I don't know where it was) I read that a new tag has to be used about 100 times before it can be documented on an a new wiki page in the key/tag namespace. 100 looks like an arbitrary number. Very easy to achieve with common things , like blades of grass. Much harder with uncommon things like man made=footwear decontamination, 6 uses since page creation in Sept last year, for example. Note that is an approved tag so warrants its wiki page that way. I think the '100' is a suggestion not a requirement. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal
Hi Past proposals are *always* useful knowledge, even if strong issues has been pointed during voting or RFC. I'm not in favor to delete anything, as to show a little respect to someone who took time to make things better. All the best François Le lun. 4 févr. 2019 à 17:52, OSMDoudou < 19b350d2-b1b3-4edb-ad96-288ea1238...@gmx.com> a écrit : > Past proposals constitute knowledge which can serve later on for a new > proposal. If it would be total crap, it would better be delete it to avoid > it serves as bad model. But if it’s half good, it can be a baseline of what > was learnt, what was disputed, what needs improvement, etc. > > ___ > 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] motorcycle:scale
On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 11:05, Hufkratzer wrote: > > [...] If we allow that everyone can create a new wiki page in the key/tag > namespace for a tag that is used only twice and list this tag on the *main* > features page the will become next to useless for the occasional user. + 1 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal
Past proposals constitute knowledge which can serve later on for a new proposal. If it would be total crap, it would better be delete it to avoid it serves as bad model. But if it’s half good, it can be a baseline of what was learnt, what was disputed, what needs improvement, etc. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] crossing=cycleway as a node
I have come across this issue too. I realize that in some countries, they have signals and roads and full blown intersections just for bikes, but many cycling roads in Japan: A) dead-end onto footways, not roads, as the ways are often treated as footways with a special designation for cycling - not "roads" - and are built to that standard. They simply don't interact with the roads as roads, but like "cycling footways". B) have pedestrian-style zebra crossings, with pedestrian-style controls (bollards, cones, curb cuts, crossing buttons), not stop signs, signals or other road "intersection" style features. C) often have no crossing (a physical barrier blocks crossing the road) - and cyclists have to join footway traffic, go to a footway's marked crossing, then rejoin the cycleway on the other side of the major road, further reinforcing that their crossings (when available) are similar. We also have unmarked crossing as well - to cover all the situations for footways - the same should be available for cycleways. D) crosswalks and other types of marked footway crossings have tagging customized for them - which are the exact same ones that are used for cycleways in (some parts of) the real world. Tying a zebra crossings to footway tagging is not something that exists in the real world, but a construct of the OSM tagging scheme. E) cycleways in OSM are in the same tagging category as path/ footway/ bridleway (a way by default not used by cars, unlike all others) but we are expected to tag how cycleways interact with roads *completely differently* than footways - a way similar to cars (when it is not done that way in some places). Seems wrong. If I see a zebra crossing with a cut curb and a bollard (I have hit a few bollards, broken my bike, but they love them here) for a cycleway to cross a road, plastered with signs and warnings to cyclists (pained on the ground) to stop just like a pedestrian - that to me is a "marked crossing" - not road-road intersection. Its existence as a *crossingway* that is heavily marked, painted, barriers, and signed - not a normal stretch of cycleway or footway - and the lack of tagging for it is something to be remedied. Javbw > On Jan 26, 2019, at 11:17 PM, Volker Schmidt wrote: > > The fact that the road is crossed by is crossed by a cycleway is already > defined by the "highway" tags' values of the two crossing highways. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal
Usually, they "old" proposals get archived (has 2 benefits: they will not be modificable any more, and it will be less easy to confuse them with current tag definitions). I am interested in your opinion on this case, where 2 users (so far) are for the wholesale deletion, while 3 have demonstrated they would like to keep it in some way or the other: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Armory=history The proposal is about militay=armory and while it isn't part of the military key page (it is on the discussion page though), the tag has some usage: https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/military=armory https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/military=armoury I am generally opposing deletion of tag definitions (including proposals) where the tags are still in use (arguably even those where the tag once was in use could make sense, e.g. to help understanding older data dumps). Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 12:24 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann : > While i agree on this particular case your distinction can be easily > misread to mean that mappers must not invent new keys or that they have > to write a proposal for them. > writing a proposal _is_ documentation, and I cannot see how it would be more complicated than setting up a tag definition page in the namespace for established tags, it is basically the same operation. > The reason i am emphasizing this is diversity. People in > underrepresented parts of the world will much more often run across > things for which no established tagging exists than we do - yet they > have comparitively little chances to have such tag established or to > bring through a proposal for them. Why would it be more complicated for them to get their proposal approved? If the thing makes sense, sooner or later you will get the numbers to mark it "de-facto" even without any voting or tagging maliing list interactions. > And creating a additional hurdle > for this by banning documentation of their tag from normal tag > documentation (and therefore from showing up in taginfo, possibly also > in editors etc.) is counterproductive. > if you use the redirect you can make the proposal visible in taginfo (IIRR, all my old proposals seem to be de-facto now, so I don't find an example), although one could also argue that this is a shortcoming of taginfo and it should fallback to proposals if no tag-definition page is found. This is of course only a fair option if there is only one proposal for a certain key or k/v combination, but otherwise I would say there is a bigger problem anyway and you should consider using a different word for your tag. > > We already have way too many cases where mapping in parts of the world > with a geography very different from that in Europe and North America > people cargo cult a European geography - essentially drawing the map to > create a look-alike of a European setting. Telling people they either > have to use established European tagging or they have bury the > documentation of their tags somewhere where no one can accidently find > them is not helping with that. > putting a tag in the proposal section is not hiding it where noone can accidentally find them, that would be the user's sandbox. Tags in the proposal section are found easily. > > Note in the vast majority of cases we are talking about new tags, not > new keys. But allowing documentation of new tags but not of new keys > would be kind of weired of course. > >From my perspective it doesn't make a difference if a new key or a new value for an existing key is proposed, with regard to how the procedure to do it should look like. Obviously, with the current ecosystem, it is easier to convince people to add a new value for an established key rather than a new key > > My suggestion: Create a new status value for the info box "not > established" that is to be used whenever a tag has less than 500 uses > and less than 20 active users. And highlight such tags with a > prominent warning that this tag is a new invention not yet broadly > accepted. > and that its definition might change? Think about people "occupying" common words with their own "strange" definitions as new keys, in an unilateral effort not backed by the community. This happens not too rarely, and if these things were inside a proposal section it would be much easier to establish different definitions, as if they were in the "normal" wiki, and when they finally get discovered, other mappers will have based their work on them, and there will be an outcry towards any change. > > There by the way is also another side to the whole subject - that is > established tags with lots of uses for which there is only a proposal > page. That is bad because a proposal page by definition describes an > idea how a tag is supposed to be used while a tag page should describe > how a tag is used. And even if at some point a wiki editor creates a > tag page this is often with content copied from the proposal without > checking if actual tag use is in line with that. Encouraging to create > proposal pages instead of tag pages when inventing tags essentially > encourages wishful thinking about the meaning of tags instead of actual > documentation of the reality of use. it is very difficult in general to get a good picture about "the reality of use", because you would have to know all the places that are mapped in order to judge the tag application. In practice it means you will check the objects you know, and these will usually be in a very limited spatial area. Tags that are used a lot can only be checked by random sample, you can't check 100.000 uses, and you can't be sure your sample is representative for the tag quality. IMHO we should emphasize more on the idea of what the tag shall represent, and while it makes sense to point out "abuse" of a tag in the tag definition page (if significant),
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
On Monday 04 February 2019, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > * invent keys - ok > > * document widely used/established keys that never went through a > proposal process - ok > > * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or > established - questionable > > * the whole thing done by someone who has in the past unilaterally > documented their personal preferred tagging on the wiki, then made > mechanical edits to push it through, and when challenged in changeset > comments, cited the wiki pages they had edited themselves as an > authority - ... While i agree on this particular case your distinction can be easily misread to mean that mappers must not invent new keys or that they have to write a proposal for them. The reason i am emphasizing this is diversity. People in underrepresented parts of the world will much more often run across things for which no established tagging exists than we do - yet they have comparitively little chances to have such tag established or to bring through a proposal for them. And creating a additional hurdle for this by banning documentation of their tag from normal tag documentation (and therefore from showing up in taginfo, possibly also in editors etc.) is counterproductive. We already have way too many cases where mapping in parts of the world with a geography very different from that in Europe and North America people cargo cult a European geography - essentially drawing the map to create a look-alike of a European setting. Telling people they either have to use established European tagging or they have bury the documentation of their tags somewhere where no one can accidently find them is not helping with that. Note in the vast majority of cases we are talking about new tags, not new keys. But allowing documentation of new tags but not of new keys would be kind of weired of course. My suggestion: Create a new status value for the info box "not established" that is to be used whenever a tag has less than 500 uses and less than 20 active users. And highlight such tags with a prominent warning that this tag is a new invention not yet broadly accepted. There by the way is also another side to the whole subject - that is established tags with lots of uses for which there is only a proposal page. That is bad because a proposal page by definition describes an idea how a tag is supposed to be used while a tag page should describe how a tag is used. And even if at some point a wiki editor creates a tag page this is often with content copied from the proposal without checking if actual tag use is in line with that. Encouraging to create proposal pages instead of tag pages when inventing tags essentially encourages wishful thinking about the meaning of tags instead of actual documentation of the reality of use. -- Christoph Hormann http://www.imagico.de/ ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
Am Mo., 4. Feb. 2019 um 01:45 Uhr schrieb Christoph Hormann : > On Monday 04 February 2019, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > > > But creating such a page or adding such tags to map features overview > > pages is misleading when there is basically no or very few usage. > > These tags should be documented as well, but the right place to do it > > is in the proposal namespace. > > Disagree here - when you start using a new tag you should document it > and you should do so on a normal tag/key page so someone looking for > how to map the same thing will find it and see how it used so far and a > data user stumbling across the tag will find it as well and know what > it means. You will find proposals as well if you search in the wiki, and it will be much clearer what there status is, because they will be marked as "proposal" rather than as well established definitions for tags. > Proposals often cannot be easily found this way, there can > be multiple contradicting proposals for the same tag, they are not > indexed by taginfo etc. I usually would create a redirect from the tag/key page to the proposal, so data users are satisfied as well. Having different meanings for the same key/value combination is something that should be avoided at all costs, but it can happen in theory with proposals. It can also happen if someone "occupies" the key or value wiki page for the tag, there could still be contradicting proposals (and people may already have mapped according to the definitions in these proposals), so it isn't a guarantee for more consistency to add unestablished tags directly into the tag definition parts of the wiki. Proposals are about ideas how something could > be tagged, not about documenting how something is tagged. > the same is true for tag pages that someone adds adhoc and without consultation with the other mappers, into the wiki, just that it is not obvious to someone with less experience in OSM mapping. > The problem discussed here is different - it is about the creation of a > complete tagging system on an abstract basis without the descriptions > and definitions actually deriving from practical use and presenting > this as if this was an established tagging idea with broad support. > For this indeed a proposal is a more suitable place. It doesn't matter if it is a "complete tagging system", or just a single tag for an isolated use case, if the tags are not established (and their meaning known from former discussions) and the new definitions are not discussed with others, it is very likely that there will be issues. Cheers, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
On 04.02.2019 08:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: * invent keys - ok * document widely used/established keys that never went through a proposal process - ok * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or established - questionable * the whole thing done by someone who has in the past unilaterally documented their personal preferred tagging on the wiki, then made mechanical edits to push it through, and when challenged in changeset comments, cited the wiki pages they had edited themselves as an authority - ... It is particularly questionable in this case to mark the documentation as "approved", and include a proposal link to a proposal for a different scheme (i.e. mountainbiking). While any other user could have convinced me that this was a copy/paste oversight, with the history of a user who had staged a fake voting in the past I can only conclude it was intentional. tom ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
On 04.02.2019 10:27, Warin wrote: On 04/02/19 18:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without creating a proposal. * invent keys - ok * document widely used/established keys that never went through a proposal process - ok * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or established - questionable I have documented some tags that have little use. There is usually a link to taginfo to give the amount of use. And there is a status value. If I am making a new page/tag I leave this blank - little use and not approved. Far better to document it than to leave open the question what is meant by a new tag such as 'man_made=clearcut' or 'landuse=logging'. Somewhere (I don't know where it was) I read that a new tag has to be used about 100 times before it can be documented on an a new wiki page in the key/tag namespace. Otherwise you can create a proposal page and link to it from other pages. I think this rule makes some sense because it makes it easier for beginners and for users who do not have the time to read everything on the wiki to quickly find what is save to use and distinguish it from what is just the opinion of a single user. A beginner will not know that the taginfo information may be more important than a nice looking wiki page. If we allow that everyone can create a new wiki page in the key/tag namespace for a tag that is used only twice and list this tag on the *main* features page the will become next to useless for the occasional user. --- Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale
On 04/02/19 18:51, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04.02.19 00:07, Christoph Hormann wrote: Just to avoid misunderstandings - it is in principle completely all right to invent tags and document them on tag/key pages without creating a proposal. * invent keys - ok * document widely used/established keys that never went through a proposal process - ok * invent keys and document them as if they were widely used or established - questionable I have documented some tags that have little use. There is usually a link to taginfo to give the amount of use. And there is a status value. If I am making a new page/tag I leave this blank - little use and not approved. Far better to document it than to leave open the question what is meant by a new tag such as 'man_made=clearcut' or 'landuse=logging'. * the whole thing done by someone who has in the past unilaterally documented their personal preferred tagging on the wiki, then made mechanical edits to push it through, and when challenged in changeset comments, cited the wiki pages they had edited themselves as an authority - ... Very circular. I do try to encourage others to consider tags, both new and old, and select the best fit not based on use nor status but what they are trying to map with what the tag represents. Push my ideas is done though lists, though it is usually more along the lines of 'tags for this thing, I think landuse=forestry ?' and then the discussion starts. We are a collection of individuals .. there will be outliers all over the place. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
