Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Richard Fairhurst]

Valor Naram wrote:
> some long time ago I wondered why we have two tags for one 
> purpose sometimes? For example: A mapper can use either the 
> tag `contact:phone`or `phone` to add a phone number to the 
> database. I think this makes the database dirty and for 
> developers - like me - it's annoying to support two or more tags 
> for one purpose.

As an annoyance in consuming OSM data, I find this ranks about #936 on the
list tbh.

If you really want to spend your life going through the bulk edit process
500 times then knock yourself out, but the effect it'll have is minimal.
Developers have to cope with synonyms anyway, because mappers express nuance
with new values, but most data consumers aren't interested in the nuance.
(For example, in cycle.travel, I treat access values of =yes, =designated,
=official, =permissive the same.)

If you want to make it easier for developers to consume OSM tags, the best
way would be to write and curate documentation covering the 90% cases,
ideally using a github-like PR model that's resistant to getting sidetracked
by the 10% (the OSM wiki problem). The second best way would be to code
libraries in common scripting languages (maybe drawing on common data
tables) that make parsing OSM tags easier.

Richard




--
Sent from: http://gis.19327.n8.nabble.com/Tagging-f5258744.html

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

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[yo paseopor]

This not always works.

See traffic_sign:direction=* and traffic_signal:direction=* or
crossing=marked  in iD or all the "missions" you will not see implemented
in StreetComplete and the impossibility of make it more scalable and
customizable.

One person said here to a question about a reasonible good proposal of new
tagging for schools and other educative centers:

"Ask any two people on this list their opinion on any matter and you will
get THREE opinions."

Good luck with it.
yopaseopor


On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 9:05 PM Valor Naram  wrote:

> > Editors won't (in general) implement tags in presets unless they're
> widely used.  Unless editors and carto support tags, they won't get widely
> used, so editors and carto won't support them.  Chicken and egg.
>
> Yes, you're right. But I was the author of "changing_table" and the guy
> who lead it throw the proposal process and also Moderator of the discussion
> and votes. And contacting all the editors was no problem and they
> implemented "changing_table" and deleted "diaper" presets. See JSOM,
> OSMand, Vespucci and also iD. My effort shows that working together with
> different groups works.
>
> I would highly appreciate it when you give me a chance. In real life
> people are revelling their secrets to me because they trust me and I give
> them the feeling of being accepted as they are. It includes my talks with
> people from different worlds. More-Than-One-World Secrets. This connection
> I can try to create also among OSM folks (societies).
>
> Best regards
>
> Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose
> From: Paul Allen
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> CC:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:06, Valor Naram  wrote:
>
>>
>> In my opinion this is a topic we should consider working on and creating
>> a wikipage to describe the "defragemtation" process in general.
>>
>
> Doing so is probably not going to achieve much.  First we need to
> defragment OSM itself.
> It doesn't matter what wonderful tags we come up with here, if carto
> refuses to render them
> then they won't get used.  It doesn't matter what wonderful tags we come
> up with here, if editors
> don't implement them as presets they won't get used.
>
> Carto won't (in general) render a tag unless it's widely used.  Editors
> won't (in general)
> implement tags in presets unless they're widely used.  Unless editors and
> carto support
> tags, they won't get widely used, so editors and carto won't support
> them.  Chicken and egg.
>
> There are complications (of course).  Carto (in general) refuses to
> implement aliases, so
> whatever the merits of deprecating landuse=grass in favour of
> landcover=grass, carto will
> refuse to render landcover=grass.  Editors don't (in general) like
> implementing aliases
> either.  So however much we wish to try to fix bad tags, which are
> frequently misused
> because the name or value was a bad choice, it probably won't happen.
> Some editors
> occasionally decide they'll ignore the list, the wiki, and carto, and go
> their own way
> (sometimes they get their way and sometimes they get a slap on the wrist).
>
> So what we need at this stage is not a defragmentation process but
> joined-up thinking
> between the various groups.  I'm not holding my breath on that one.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> ___
> 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] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Simon Poole]

Am 24.08.2019 um 21:03 schrieb Valor Naram:
> > Editors won't (in general) implement tags in presets unless they're
> widely used.  Unless editors and carto support tags, they won't get
> widely used, so editors and carto won't support them.  Chicken and egg.
>
> Yes, you're right. But I was the author of "changing_table" and the
> guy who lead it throw the proposal process and also Moderator of the
> discussion and votes. And contacting all the editors was no problem
> and they implemented "changing_table" and deleted "diaper" presets.
> See JSOM, OSMand, Vespucci and also iD. My effort shows that working
> together with different groups works.

A) at least I didn't "delete" the diaper preset.

B) you are confusing the decision that something is too silly to argue
about, with agreement.

>
> I would highly appreciate it when you give me a chance. In real life
> people are revelling their secrets to me because they trust me and I
> give them the feeling of being accepted as they are. It includes my
> talks with people from different worlds. More-Than-One-World Secrets.
> This connection I can try to create also among OSM folks (societies).
>
That is seriously OT.


> Best regards
>
> Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose
> From: Paul Allen
> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
> CC:
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:06, Valor Naram  <mailto:valin...@gmx.net>> wrote:
>
>
> In my opinion this is a topic we should consider working on
> and creating a wikipage to describe the "defragemtation"
> process in general.
>
>
> Doing so is probably not going to achieve much.  First we need to
> defragment OSM itself.
> It doesn't matter what wonderful tags we come up with here, if
> carto refuses to render them
> then they won't get used.  It doesn't matter what wonderful tags
> we come up with here, if editors
> don't implement them as presets they won't get used.
>
> Carto won't (in general) render a tag unless it's widely used. 
> Editors won't (in general)
> implement tags in presets unless they're widely used.  Unless
> editors and carto support
> tags, they won't get widely used, so editors and carto won't
> support them.  Chicken and egg.
>
> There are complications (of course).  Carto (in general) refuses
> to implement aliases, so
> whatever the merits of deprecating landuse=grass in favour of
> landcover=grass, carto will
> refuse to render landcover=grass.  Editors don't (in general) like
> implementing aliases
> either.  So however much we wish to try to fix bad tags, which are
> frequently misused
> because the name or value was a bad choice, it probably won't
> happen.  Some editors
> occasionally decide they'll ignore the list, the wiki, and carto,
> and go their own way
> (sometimes they get their way and sometimes they get a slap on the
> wrist).
>
> So what we need at this stage is not a defragmentation process but
> joined-up thinking
> between the various groups.  I'm not holding my breath on that one.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Valor Naram]

And do you have any idea how to handle that problem? Supporting two or more tags meaning the same thing is dirty and results in longer queries.I might have an idea: Getting in dialogue with developers and mappers (users of one key, users of another key). Naming the problem and working alltogether to solve it. Goal: To deprecate one tag in favor of the other one. Developing a strategy.Best regardsSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purposeFrom: Joseph Eisenberg To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Getting back to the original example, phone=* was proposed first andvoted on in 1/2008 - seehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phone - the tagwas rejected. Some people at the time did not think that OSM shouldcontain phone numbers, others preferred something like contact:phone.However, starting in mid-2008 the tag started to be used anyway.I don't think there was every a proposal from contact:phone. Itstarted being used in mid-2009, but was never more popular thanphone=* (except for 2 months in 2008, after a small import or switchof tags to contact:phone), according tohttps://taghistory.raifer.tech.Over the past 12 months (8-2018 to 8-2019), contact:phone=* hasincreased by 50k from 260k to 310k, while phone=* increased by 200k,from 1200k to 1400k. So phone=* is clearly preferred by about a 4 to 1ratio, even though the original proposal was rejected.This is a good example of the "problem": the smaller group of peoplewho votes on tags does not always pick tags to approve which thegeneral mapping community will use, and sometimes rejects tags whichlater become the "de facto" standard.- JosephOn 8/25/19, Valor Naram  wrote:> That's why I want to involve all user groups. Mappers, developers and local> communities.>> Cheerio>> Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram>>> ---- Original Message ----> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose> From: marc marc> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org> CC:>>>> Le 24.08.19 à 18:04, Valor Naram a écrit :>> > why we have two tags for one purpose sometimes?>>>> many (almost all bad) reasons can explain it :>>>> - one key exist, a new schema is born with a new tag for the same>> feature/meaning, but the new schema never got a proposal or the proposal>> never go into voting or the accepted proposal doesn't said enought "this>> tag is depreced" (ex : phone <> contact:phone) or the new tag have some>> issue and therefore some mapper want a new schema that solve everything>> before dropping the first one (source:maxspeed <> maxspeed:type)>>>> - some key have high usage and a part of the community is unwilling to>> apply some lifecycle to tag, hoping that one day, "the invisible hand of>> the community" (parody of the concept of the invisible hand in>> economics) will solve the problem while we bury our heads in the sand>> to deny the problem it creates (for ex building=cooling_tower <>>> tower:type=cooling)>>>> - 2 key exist, one use by one editor, other rejetected by this editor>> but used by all-expet-one (ex : crossing=marked)>>>> - 2 key exist but the exact meaning vary according to who used it.>> at the end, the only usable meaning is the same for both key (ex :>> landuse=forest <> natural=wood)>>>> - only one tag exist at the begining but the but the key is in>> contradiction with the meaning/logic of the key and therefore some>> have created a more structured alternative. however this alternative>> is rejected by the default rendering because the other key has>> a more important use. it is the problem of the egg and the hen.>> (ex: landuse=grass with have a clear meaning which is not a landuse)>>>> - all those involved in this ml and/or in a voting agree that a key>> should be depreciated, but someone thinks it would take hundreds of>> voters when there are not hundreds of participants. so motivated people>> go their way and the problem remains (see the discussion this summer...>> I don't remember the tag concerned)>>>> - some depreciated tags can't be converted automaticly because the tag>> have 2 meanings (ex power=sub_station). not enough mapper review those.>>>> - some proposal "hides" a depreciated tag into several other good stuff.>> at the end the proposal got rejected or some disagree to use "the vote".>> imho a "proposal to depreciate a tag" need to be as small as possible>>>> therefore the default osm.org editor think it must take the lead to>> decide what to depreciated and do a distributed automated edit.>> sometime

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Warin]

On 25/08/19 15:02, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Getting back to the original example, phone=* was proposed first and
voted on in 1/2008 - see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phone - the tag
was rejected. Some people at the time did not think that OSM should
contain phone numbers, others preferred something like contact:phone.
However, starting in mid-2008 the tag started to be used anyway.

I don't think there was every a proposal from contact:phone. It
started being used in mid-2009, but was never more popular than
phone=* (except for 2 months in 2008, after a small import or switch
of tags to contact:phone), according to
https://taghistory.raifer.tech.

Over the past 12 months (8-2018 to 8-2019), contact:phone=* has
increased by 50k from 260k to 310k, while phone=* increased by 200k,
from 1200k to 1400k. So phone=* is clearly preferred by about a 4 to 1
ratio, even though the original proposal was rejected.

This is a good example of the "problem": the smaller group of people
who votes on tags does not always pick tags to approve which the
general mapping community will use, and sometimes rejects tags which
later become the "de facto" standard.


This may well be an example of the OSM wiki guiding people to a tag in 
preference to other more logical tags ...

Type 'phone' into the OSMwiki search box and you get redirected to the key 
'phone=*'.
This gets preferential treatment to the key 'contact:phone=*'.

I think that having a wiki page on the key/tag you want to promote is essential 
to getting the numbers up.
And further if that key/value is prominent in any OSMwiki search then the 
better the chance of it gaining use.
The 'rejection' of other tags is not one of consideration but tldr.
Few mappers will take the time to read all the info on a tag that looks to suit 
what they have to map.

So my take home message here is;
Make a wiki page!
Premote that wiki page.
Demote, denigrate other competing tags in anyway possible.


The above should see the wanted tag become 'more popular', 'more common', 'more 
accepted' than the other tags.
Not saying that is what I have done, but that appears to be the way of things.



- Joseph

On 8/25/19, Valor Naram  wrote:

That's why I want to involve all user groups. Mappers, developers and local
communities.

Cheerio

Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram


 Original Message ----
Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose
From: marc marc
To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
CC:



Le 24.08.19 à 18:04, Valor Naram a écrit :

why we have two tags for one purpose sometimes?

many (almost all bad) reasons can explain it :

- one key exist, a new schema is born with a new tag for the same
feature/meaning, but the new schema never got a proposal or the proposal
never go into voting or the accepted proposal doesn't said enought "this
tag is depreced" (ex : phone <> contact:phone) or the new tag have some
issue and therefore some mapper want a new schema that solve everything
before dropping the first one (source:maxspeed <> maxspeed:type)

- some key have high usage and a part of the community is unwilling to
apply some lifecycle to tag, hoping that one day, "the invisible hand of
the community" (parody of the concept of the invisible hand in
economics) will solve the problem while we bury our heads in the sand
to deny the problem it creates (for ex building=cooling_tower <>
tower:type=cooling)

- 2 key exist, one use by one editor, other rejetected by this editor
but used by all-expet-one (ex : crossing=marked)

- 2 key exist but the exact meaning vary according to who used it.
at the end, the only usable meaning is the same for both key (ex :
landuse=forest <> natural=wood)

- only one tag exist at the begining but the but the key is in
contradiction with the meaning/logic of the key and therefore some
have created a more structured alternative. however this alternative
is rejected by the default rendering because the other key has
a more important use. it is the problem of the egg and the hen.
(ex: landuse=grass with have a clear meaning which is not a landuse)

- all those involved in this ml and/or in a voting agree that a key
should be depreciated, but someone thinks it would take hundreds of
voters when there are not hundreds of participants. so motivated people
go their way and the problem remains (see the discussion this summer...
I don't remember the tag concerned)

- some depreciated tags can't be converted automaticly because the tag
have 2 meanings (ex power=sub_station). not enough mapper review those.

- some proposal "hides" a depreciated tag into several other good stuff.
at the end the proposal got rejected or some disagree to use "the vote".
imho a "proposal to depreciate a tag" need to be as small as possible

therefore the default osm.org editor think it must take the lead to
decide what to depreciated and do a d

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Getting back to the original example, phone=* was proposed first and
voted on in 1/2008 - see
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Phone - the tag
was rejected. Some people at the time did not think that OSM should
contain phone numbers, others preferred something like contact:phone.
However, starting in mid-2008 the tag started to be used anyway.

I don't think there was every a proposal from contact:phone. It
started being used in mid-2009, but was never more popular than
phone=* (except for 2 months in 2008, after a small import or switch
of tags to contact:phone), according to
https://taghistory.raifer.tech.

Over the past 12 months (8-2018 to 8-2019), contact:phone=* has
increased by 50k from 260k to 310k, while phone=* increased by 200k,
from 1200k to 1400k. So phone=* is clearly preferred by about a 4 to 1
ratio, even though the original proposal was rejected.

This is a good example of the "problem": the smaller group of people
who votes on tags does not always pick tags to approve which the
general mapping community will use, and sometimes rejects tags which
later become the "de facto" standard.

- Joseph

On 8/25/19, Valor Naram  wrote:
> That's why I want to involve all user groups. Mappers, developers and local
> communities.
>
> Cheerio
>
> Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>
>
>  Original Message ----
> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose
> From: marc marc
> To: tagging@openstreetmap.org
> CC:
>
>
>> Le 24.08.19 à 18:04, Valor Naram a écrit :
>> > why we have two tags for one purpose sometimes?
>>
>> many (almost all bad) reasons can explain it :
>>
>> - one key exist, a new schema is born with a new tag for the same
>> feature/meaning, but the new schema never got a proposal or the proposal
>> never go into voting or the accepted proposal doesn't said enought "this
>> tag is depreced" (ex : phone <> contact:phone) or the new tag have some
>> issue and therefore some mapper want a new schema that solve everything
>> before dropping the first one (source:maxspeed <> maxspeed:type)
>>
>> - some key have high usage and a part of the community is unwilling to
>> apply some lifecycle to tag, hoping that one day, "the invisible hand of
>> the community" (parody of the concept of the invisible hand in
>> economics) will solve the problem while we bury our heads in the sand
>> to deny the problem it creates (for ex building=cooling_tower <>
>> tower:type=cooling)
>>
>> - 2 key exist, one use by one editor, other rejetected by this editor
>> but used by all-expet-one (ex : crossing=marked)
>>
>> - 2 key exist but the exact meaning vary according to who used it.
>> at the end, the only usable meaning is the same for both key (ex :
>> landuse=forest <> natural=wood)
>>
>> - only one tag exist at the begining but the but the key is in
>> contradiction with the meaning/logic of the key and therefore some
>> have created a more structured alternative. however this alternative
>> is rejected by the default rendering because the other key has
>> a more important use. it is the problem of the egg and the hen.
>> (ex: landuse=grass with have a clear meaning which is not a landuse)
>>
>> - all those involved in this ml and/or in a voting agree that a key
>> should be depreciated, but someone thinks it would take hundreds of
>> voters when there are not hundreds of participants. so motivated people
>> go their way and the problem remains (see the discussion this summer...
>> I don't remember the tag concerned)
>>
>> - some depreciated tags can't be converted automaticly because the tag
>> have 2 meanings (ex power=sub_station). not enough mapper review those.
>>
>> - some proposal "hides" a depreciated tag into several other good stuff.
>> at the end the proposal got rejected or some disagree to use "the vote".
>> imho a "proposal to depreciate a tag" need to be as small as possible
>>
>> therefore the default osm.org editor think it must take the lead to
>> decide what to depreciated and do a distributed automated edit.
>> sometimes it corresponds to the opinion of the community, sometimes not,
>> and in this case the community has lost control and the automated edit
>> is poorly documented and sometime wrong. it sometimes leads to edit wars
>> or an unpleasant discussions, it further cools down people who want to
>> make another depreciation of a tag, or it motivates them to do so via a
>> ticket for an editor since if the dev agrees, it will happen even if the
>> community is against.
>>
>

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Valor Naram]

That's why I want to involve all user groups. Mappers, developers and local communities.CheerioSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purposeFrom: marc marc To: tagging@openstreetmap.orgCC: Le 24.08.19 à 18:04, Valor Naram a écrit :> why we have two tags for one purpose sometimes?many (almost all bad) reasons can explain it :- one key exist, a new schema is born with a new tag for the same feature/meaning, but the new schema never got a proposal or the proposal never go into voting or the accepted proposal doesn't said enought "this tag is depreced" (ex : phone <> contact:phone) or the new tag have some issue and therefore some mapper want a new schema that solve everything before dropping the first one (source:maxspeed <> maxspeed:type)- some key have high usage and a part of the community is unwilling to apply some lifecycle to tag, hoping that one day, "the invisible hand of the community" (parody of the concept of the invisible hand in economics) will solve the problem while we bury our heads in the sandto deny the problem it creates (for ex building=cooling_tower <> tower:type=cooling)- 2 key exist, one use by one editor, other rejetected by this editor but used by all-expet-one (ex : crossing=marked)- 2 key exist but the exact meaning vary according to who used it.at the end, the only usable meaning is the same for both key (ex : landuse=forest <> natural=wood)- only one tag exist at the begining but the but the key is in contradiction with the meaning/logic of the key and therefore somehave created a more structured alternative. however this alternativeis rejected by the default rendering because the other key hasa more important use. it is the problem of the egg and the hen.(ex: landuse=grass with have a clear meaning which is not a landuse)- all those involved in this ml and/or in a voting agree that a key should be depreciated, but someone thinks it would take hundreds of voters when there are not hundreds of participants. so motivated people go their way and the problem remains (see the discussion this summer... I don't remember the tag concerned)- some depreciated tags can't be converted automaticly because the tag have 2 meanings (ex power=sub_station). not enough mapper review those.- some proposal "hides" a depreciated tag into several other good stuff.at the end the proposal got rejected or some disagree to use "the vote".imho a "proposal to depreciate a tag" need to be as small as possibletherefore the default osm.org editor think it must take the lead to decide what to depreciated and do a distributed automated edit. sometimes it corresponds to the opinion of the community, sometimes not, and in this case the community has lost control and the automated editis poorly documented and sometime wrong. it sometimes leads to edit wars or an unpleasant discussions, it further cools down people who want to make another depreciation of a tag, or it motivates them to do so via a ticket for an editor since if the dev agrees, it will happen even if the community is against.possible solutions based on my limited experience :- talk to choice the better tag between 2 need to be done at the global level, arguments must be listened but ignore noice like "the wrong tag is too important to change"- making mecanical edit to migrate a depreciated/bad tag to its new value works well at the local (coutry) level, the discussion take place with the local community, without being polluted by "opponents in principle". several of us do that kind of thing.- probably we should make a "network" to share the proposals, this would have a global impact perhaps enought to progress on some tags while "opponents in principle" continue to have no solution to the problems exposed.- it is only when several local communities have agreed on the same choice and the countries in question have accepted a mass edition that it is possible to risk such a demand at the global level.I only did 3 at the global level, 2 to fix a bug in an editor,a third to migrate a marginal key.in 2 of the 3 cases, I had requests for explanations after the fact despite it was discussed wherever I thought it was necessary. I learned that next time, we will have to discuss even more and be even more square about where the discussion is taking place and about the documentation (one was not sufficiently documented when it begging).I am well aware of the unpleasant tone of my message, but I have not found a way to describe facts objectively while pointing out the problems that have persisted for years.Regards,Marc___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Mateusz Konieczny]

24 Aug 2019, 18:39 by pla16...@gmail.com:

> Editors won't (in general)
> implement tags in presets unless they're widely used. 
>
This is not true. Barrier for support in editors
is really low.
Many tags that are not widely used are
supported.

For example man_made=obelisk 
support was just added to iD,
based on my simple issue requesting it.
(it is so recent that version with is probably currently not deployed)
JOSM developers respond well to
requests to support sensible tags.

Popular tags are not even requiring that -
JOSM developers actively monitor popular unsupported tags.___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[marc marc]

Le 24.08.19 à 18:04, Valor Naram a écrit :
> why we have two tags for one purpose sometimes?

many (almost all bad) reasons can explain it :

- one key exist, a new schema is born with a new tag for the same 
feature/meaning, but the new schema never got a proposal or the proposal 
never go into voting or the accepted proposal doesn't said enought "this 
tag is depreced" (ex : phone <> contact:phone) or the new tag have some 
issue and therefore some mapper want a new schema that solve everything 
before dropping the first one (source:maxspeed <> maxspeed:type)

- some key have high usage and a part of the community is unwilling to 
apply some lifecycle to tag, hoping that one day, "the invisible hand of 
the community" (parody of the concept of the invisible hand in 
economics) will solve the problem while we bury our heads in the sand
to deny the problem it creates (for ex building=cooling_tower <> 
tower:type=cooling)

- 2 key exist, one use by one editor, other rejetected by this editor 
but used by all-expet-one (ex : crossing=marked)

- 2 key exist but the exact meaning vary according to who used it.
at the end, the only usable meaning is the same for both key (ex : 
landuse=forest <> natural=wood)

- only one tag exist at the begining but the but the key is in 
contradiction with the meaning/logic of the key and therefore some
have created a more structured alternative. however this alternative
is rejected by the default rendering because the other key has
a more important use. it is the problem of the egg and the hen.
(ex: landuse=grass with have a clear meaning which is not a landuse)

- all those involved in this ml and/or in a voting agree that a key 
should be depreciated, but someone thinks it would take hundreds of 
voters when there are not hundreds of participants. so motivated people 
go their way and the problem remains (see the discussion this summer... 
I don't remember the tag concerned)

- some depreciated tags can't be converted automaticly because the tag 
have 2 meanings (ex power=sub_station). not enough mapper review those.

- some proposal "hides" a depreciated tag into several other good stuff.
at the end the proposal got rejected or some disagree to use "the vote".
imho a "proposal to depreciate a tag" need to be as small as possible

therefore the default osm.org editor think it must take the lead to 
decide what to depreciated and do a distributed automated edit. 
sometimes it corresponds to the opinion of the community, sometimes not, 
and in this case the community has lost control and the automated edit
is poorly documented and sometime wrong. it sometimes leads to edit wars 
or an unpleasant discussions, it further cools down people who want to 
make another depreciation of a tag, or it motivates them to do so via a 
ticket for an editor since if the dev agrees, it will happen even if the 
community is against.

possible solutions based on my limited experience :
- talk to choice the better tag between 2 need to be done at the global 
level, arguments must be listened but ignore noice like "the wrong tag 
is too important to change"
- making mecanical edit to migrate a depreciated/bad tag to its new 
value works well at the local (coutry) level, the discussion take place 
with the local community, without being polluted by "opponents in 
principle". several of us do that kind of thing.
- probably we should make a "network" to share the proposals, this would 
have a global impact perhaps enought to progress on some tags while 
"opponents in principle" continue to have no solution to the problems 
exposed.
- it is only when several local communities have agreed on the same 
choice and the countries in question have accepted a mass edition that 
it is possible to risk such a demand at the global level.
I only did 3 at the global level, 2 to fix a bug in an editor,
a third to migrate a marginal key.
in 2 of the 3 cases, I had requests for explanations after the fact 
despite it was discussed wherever I thought it was necessary. I learned 
that next time, we will have to discuss even more and be even more 
square about where the discussion is taking place and about the 
documentation (one was not sufficiently documented when it begging).

I am well aware of the unpleasant tone of my message, but I have not 
found a way to describe facts objectively while pointing out the 
problems that have persisted for years.

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

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Valor Naram]

> Editors won't (in general) implement tags in presets unless they're widely used.  Unless editors and carto support tags, they won't get widely used, so editors and carto won't support them.  Chicken and egg.Yes, you're right. But I was the author of "changing_table" and the guy who lead it throw the proposal process and also Moderator of the discussion and votes. And contacting all the editors was no problem and they implemented "changing_table" and deleted "diaper" presets. See JSOM, OSMand, Vespucci and also iD. My effort shows that working together with different groups works.I would highly appreciate it when you give me a chance. In real life people are revelling their secrets to me because they trust me and I give them the feeling of being accepted as they are. It includes my talks with people from different worlds. More-Than-One-World Secrets. This connection I can try to create also among OSM folks (societies).Best regardsSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purposeFrom: Paul Allen To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:06, Valor Naram  wrote:In my opinion this is a topic we should consider working on and creating a wikipage to describe the "defragemtation" process in general.Doing so is probably not going to achieve much.  First we need to defragment OSM itself.It doesn't matter what wonderful tags we come up with here, if carto refuses to render themthen they won't get used.  It doesn't matter what wonderful tags we come up with here, if editorsdon't implement them as presets they won't get used.Carto won't (in general) render a tag unless it's widely used.  Editors won't (in general)implement tags in presets unless they're widely used.  Unless editors and carto supporttags, they won't get widely used, so editors and carto won't support them.  Chicken and egg.There are complications (of course).  Carto (in general) refuses to implement aliases, sowhatever the merits of deprecating landuse=grass in favour of landcover=grass, carto willrefuse to render landcover=grass.  Editors don't (in general) like implementing aliaseseither.  So however much we wish to try to fix bad tags, which are frequently misusedbecause the name or value was a bad choice, it probably won't happen.  Some editorsoccasionally decide they'll ignore the list, the wiki, and carto, and go their own way(sometimes they get their way and sometimes they get a slap on the wrist).So what we need at this stage is not a defragmentation process but joined-up thinkingbetween the various groups.  I'm not holding my breath on that one.-- Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Valor Naram via Tagging]

The tagging Community (this list) will negotiate it and it's the office at the same time. The process should be like the process for proposals but only discussion and vote.RegardsSören Reinecke alias Valor Naram Original Message Subject: Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purposeFrom: Peter Elderson To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" CC: Valor Naram  het volgende geschreven:We need a system to prevent or instinct the usage of two or more tags for one purpose. I suggest the following behaviour:1. Negotiating which key can be considered as official.Who will negotiate, what do they have to negiate with?What office makes it official? What process?Chances are you will never get consensus. ___Tagging mailing listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Peter Elderson]

Valor Naram  het volgende geschreven:
> 
> We need a system to prevent or instinct the usage of two or more tags for one 
> purpose. I suggest the following behaviour:
> 1. Negotiating which key can be considered as official.

Who will negotiate, what do they have to negiate with?
What office makes it official? What process?

Chances are you will never get consensus. 

> ___
> 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] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Paul Allen]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2019 at 17:06, Valor Naram  wrote:

>
> In my opinion this is a topic we should consider working on and creating a
> wikipage to describe the "defragemtation" process in general.
>

Doing so is probably not going to achieve much.  First we need to
defragment OSM itself.
It doesn't matter what wonderful tags we come up with here, if carto
refuses to render them
then they won't get used.  It doesn't matter what wonderful tags we come up
with here, if editors
don't implement them as presets they won't get used.

Carto won't (in general) render a tag unless it's widely used.  Editors
won't (in general)
implement tags in presets unless they're widely used.  Unless editors and
carto support
tags, they won't get widely used, so editors and carto won't support them.
Chicken and egg.

There are complications (of course).  Carto (in general) refuses to
implement aliases, so
whatever the merits of deprecating landuse=grass in favour of
landcover=grass, carto will
refuse to render landcover=grass.  Editors don't (in general) like
implementing aliases
either.  So however much we wish to try to fix bad tags, which are
frequently misused
because the name or value was a bad choice, it probably won't happen.  Some
editors
occasionally decide they'll ignore the list, the wiki, and carto, and go
their own way
(sometimes they get their way and sometimes they get a slap on the wrist).

So what we need at this stage is not a defragmentation process but
joined-up thinking
between the various groups.  I'm not holding my breath on that one.

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

[Tagging] Multiple tags for one purpose

[Valor Naram]

Hey,

some long time ago I wondered why we have two tags for one purpose
sometimes? For example: A mapper can use either the tag `contact:phone`
or `phone` to add a phone number to the database. I think this makes
the database dirty and for developers - like me - it's annoying to
support two or more tags for one purpose.

We need a system to prevent or instinct the usage of two or more tags
for one purpose. I suggest the following behaviour:
1. Negotiating which key can be considered as official.
1.1. A key which has been approved should be the official key but other
factors like usage or improving can be considered.
2. Deprecating the other key by following the introductions on the
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Deprecated_features page.
2.1. Opening issues for incorporating the official key into presets and
removing presets with the old key:
2.1.1. https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues
2.1.2. https://josm.openstreetmap.de/newticket
2.1.3. https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues
2.1.4. https://github.com/osmandapp/Osmand/issues
2.1.5. https://github.com/simonpoole/beautified-JOSM-preset/issues
2.1.6. ...
2.2. See how much the official key is used among mappers on
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/ and also see the usage count for the
old key. (For a period of 2-3 month)
2.2.1. If things are developing well and the official key gets more
usage and the old key less usage then we won't need a mechanical edit.
2.2.2. If things aren't working for some reasons like there are not
many real objects that can be tagged with the official key then we will
do a mechanical edit but keeping the `check_date` and
`review_requested` keys intact.

I also had an interesting talk with Quincy Morgan at
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6529#issuecomment-524437983
about "fragmentation" as Morgan calls it.


In my opinion this is a topic we should consider working on and
creating a wikipage to describe the "defragemtation" process in
general.

Cheers,

Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging