Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Warin]

On 19/3/20 4:52 pm, stevea wrote:

Even the "let's not misunderstand" posts might even contain slight misunderstandings.  As 
Roland mentions tiger:cfcc tags, there is an argument (and documented wiki) that suggests they 
might still yield some underlying structure of the TIGER rail import in the USA which can provide 
useful data (in constructing route=railway relations, for example) still today, even as they have 
become somewhat smeared since their import.  It is virtually impossible to recognize all such 
subtitles of all such structured data that is now in OSM.  To say "this import seems to have 
'grey' (old, misunderstood, seems to be 'noise in place') data, we should structurally treat it 
like x, y and z" REALLY must have some deep treatment about what these data were, are and 
might be before some wholesale data manipulation occurs.

I'm not saying some of these (clean up our data sub-projects) aren't good 
ideas, just that we MUST look at the whole iceberg rather than only its tip.  
Usually, what appears to be is only the tip and the iceberg is bigger than one 
might realize.



Agreed on the iceberg! The world is a large place for view points and 
usage.



However the beginning mapper may have no knowledge of the tools 
available and count on the status as a primary indicator.


As such the status needs to distinguish those tags that are questionable 
for further use. And probably other flavors of 'status'.





SteveA


On Mar 18, 2020, at 10:37 PM, Roland Olbricht  wrote:
..."stale": Tags that came with an import, are not, and can not be used by
general mappers, and are not expected to be updated. "tiger:cfcc" is
currently the most numerous. The low number of values of "tiger:cfcc"
makes it unlikely that it is carrying any meaning.

Another final question is whether it makes sense to refine the system at
all. Much of the information of the tagging classes is available via
taginfo, and some more can be automatically computed from the database,
although it is it done today. Having this is as explicit information
instead is the either redundant (if in line with actual database
content) or misleading (if in contradiction to the actual database content).

This is a true, excellent point:
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[stevea]

"Subtleties" not "subtitles."  Dang auto-correct!  Also, I was sloppy with 
"data are plural, datum is singular."

Roland's "true, excellent point" (period, not colon) is that sometimes this 
becomes a "cost-benefit evaluation" where the trouble to "fix" (modify) data 
may likely be higher-cost than the benefit of what might be determinable 
directly from the data (anyway, presently).

SteveA

> On Mar 18, 2020, at 10:52 PM, stevea  wrote:
> 
> Even the "let's not misunderstand" posts might even contain slight 
> misunderstandings.  As Roland mentions tiger:cfcc tags, there is an argument 
> (and documented wiki) that suggests they might still yield some underlying 
> structure of the TIGER rail import in the USA which can provide useful data 
> (in constructing route=railway relations, for example) still today, even as 
> they have become somewhat smeared since their import.  It is virtually 
> impossible to recognize all such subtitles of all such structured data that 
> is now in OSM.  To say "this import seems to have 'grey' (old, misunderstood, 
> seems to be 'noise in place') data, we should structurally treat it like x, y 
> and z" REALLY must have some deep treatment about what these data were, are 
> and might be before some wholesale data manipulation occurs.
> 
> I'm not saying some of these (clean up our data sub-projects) aren't good 
> ideas, just that we MUST look at the whole iceberg rather than only its tip.  
> Usually, what appears to be is only the tip and the iceberg is bigger than 
> one might realize.
> 
> SteveA
> 
>> On Mar 18, 2020, at 10:37 PM, Roland Olbricht  wrote:
>> ..."stale": Tags that came with an import, are not, and can not be used by
>> general mappers, and are not expected to be updated. "tiger:cfcc" is
>> currently the most numerous. The low number of values of "tiger:cfcc"
>> makes it unlikely that it is carrying any meaning.
>> 
>> Another final question is whether it makes sense to refine the system at
>> all. Much of the information of the tagging classes is available via
>> taginfo, and some more can be automatically computed from the database,
>> although it is it done today. Having this is as explicit information
>> instead is the either redundant (if in line with actual database
>> content) or misleading (if in contradiction to the actual database content).
> 
> This is a true, excellent point:


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[stevea]

Even the "let's not misunderstand" posts might even contain slight 
misunderstandings.  As Roland mentions tiger:cfcc tags, there is an argument 
(and documented wiki) that suggests they might still yield some underlying 
structure of the TIGER rail import in the USA which can provide useful data (in 
constructing route=railway relations, for example) still today, even as they 
have become somewhat smeared since their import.  It is virtually impossible to 
recognize all such subtitles of all such structured data that is now in OSM.  
To say "this import seems to have 'grey' (old, misunderstood, seems to be 
'noise in place') data, we should structurally treat it like x, y and z" REALLY 
must have some deep treatment about what these data were, are and might be 
before some wholesale data manipulation occurs.

I'm not saying some of these (clean up our data sub-projects) aren't good 
ideas, just that we MUST look at the whole iceberg rather than only its tip.  
Usually, what appears to be is only the tip and the iceberg is bigger than one 
might realize.

SteveA

> On Mar 18, 2020, at 10:37 PM, Roland Olbricht  wrote:
> ..."stale": Tags that came with an import, are not, and can not be used by
> general mappers, and are not expected to be updated. "tiger:cfcc" is
> currently the most numerous. The low number of values of "tiger:cfcc"
> makes it unlikely that it is carrying any meaning.
> 
> Another final question is whether it makes sense to refine the system at
> all. Much of the information of the tagging classes is available via
> taginfo, and some more can be automatically computed from the database,
> although it is it done today. Having this is as explicit information
> instead is the either redundant (if in line with actual database
> content) or misleading (if in contradiction to the actual database content).

This is a true, excellent point:
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Roland Olbricht]

I would like to add a new status to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Approval_status and to Tag and Key
pages in the wiki

The value "import" would be used for tags that were used in a large
import, but are no longer commonly being added.


The misunderstanding about "object:street" has already shown that things
are probably not that easy. The tag is in widespread use, but just not
on the entire planet.

In other words, that status "import" would conflate at least three very
different things:

"local": tags that are in use by a local community. There are many more
subtle things that are important locally but do not make sense on a
global scale. The "object:street" is an example of this, or
"addr:conscriptionnumber" mostly in Austria. "crossing_ref" is an
example for an UK specific tag, GNIS are local to the US and so on.

"external": There are quite a lot of references to an external databases
(e.g. "ref:bag", "osak:identifier", "wikidata", IFOPT and NaPTAN). They
may or may not be global. In any case, they are meaningless unless you
have access to the source database as well, as opposed to "local" which
are verifiable on the ground.

"stale": Tags that came with an import, are not, and can not be used by
general mappers, and are not expected to be updated. "tiger:cfcc" is
currently the most numerous. The low number of values of "tiger:cfcc"
makes it unlikely that it is carrying any meaning.

Another final question is whether it makes sense to refine the system at
all. Much of the information of the tagging classes is available via
taginfo, and some more can be automatically computed from the database,
although it is it done today. Having this is as explicit information
instead is the either redundant (if in line with actual database
content) or misleading (if in contradiction to the actual database content).

Best regards,

Roland

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Warin]

On 18/3/20 10:17 am, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:

Unlike some of those who responded, I was not intending this status to
be a "mark of shame", but rather informative.


A 'mark of shame"? These are neither people or animals.
While a contributor may feel some attachment, once it is in OSM it is OSMs to 
deal with as it desires.



As mentioned, some imported tags like "gnis:feature_id=*" are useful
to keep the Openstreetmap database object directly linked to an object
in an external database.

That's why I am not suggesting the use of "deprecated" or "obsolete",
since these tags should not necessarily be removed.


Depreciated and obsolete may too suggest a 'mark of shame'.

And depreciated and obsolete suggest there is a replacement, based on past 
practice. If there is a replacement, why is there this discussion?

There may not be a direct easy replacement for some and for the case I am 
thinking of a good deal more work is involved but it results in a better map.

I am thinking of landuse=clearing... originally mapped without any surrounding 
features.



The main reason to mark them is so that mappers and database users
will understand where the tag came from, and it may suggest that
mappers will not want to add these tags to objects in the future,
unless they are also importing features from the same source.


Or a similar source or activity.



Besides the tags mentioned above, I was thinking about tags like
"object:postcode=" and "object:housenumber" - this tag is only used in
Germany on "highway=street_lamp" features which appear to have been
imported mostly in 2015: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object
and see taghistory:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ and

So, though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to
know that these tags are not really being used, except in that
particular context. Apparently it makes sense in the context of the
addressing system there, at least according to the mappers who
imported the objects.

If a tag which was first used in an imported then becomes popular and
used frequently by. mappers for new or updated features, then it could
change to "in use" or even "de facto", just like a "draft" or
"proposed" tag can change status due to usage over time.

So, just like the status "draft", the status "import" would be a hint
for mappers and database users, but would not suggest that the tag
needs to be removed, and it might change status in the future based on
use by mappers.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/18/20, Jmapb  wrote:

On 3/17/2020 10:52 AM, Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk wrote:

However, among your examples you cite "gnis:feature_id=*" The wiki
page for this key notes:
"Unlike other imported tags such as gnis:created=* and
gnis:import_uuid=*, gnis:feature_id=* is meaningful beyond the import.
In fact, some mappers actively add gnis:feature_id=* to features to
cite a verifiable source for the POI's existence or its name."

Agree with clemency for gnis:feature_id -- it's handy to be able to
crossreference features with the GNIS database, which you can search by
feature id here: https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:1:0:

J



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[stevea]

See, data always have a backstory.  Thinking you know what it is, or that you 
can improve upon OSM by erasing existing data that has a backstory, hmmm, give 
that one a good, long think first before you do anything.  Discuss with others, 
research, think about past, present and even future data/tagging schemes that 
might truly improve what you attempt to improve.  Doing this is complex and 
deserves complex treatment, not a gloss-over and quick action.

SteveA

> On Mar 17, 2020, at 4:38 PM, stevea  wrote:
> 
> I would like to stress once again how easily it is for intended semantics of 
> what is meant to be tagged, "improve-tagged" or "tag-modernized so that 
> people understand the historical context of this tag" to diverge from the 
> semantics that OTHER volunteers / contributors to OSM glean from these.  It 
> is SO easy for these to be far apart and people to misunderstand one another.
> 
> This entire endeavor is fraught with peril and is one of the most slippery 
> and dangerous (in the sense of hurt feelings due to misunderstandings, 
> usually unintentional) in any scheme that has to do with "tagging," as in OSM 
> with our tags (and their meant-to-be-static, though actually change through 
> time) semantics.
> 
> Please, let's better understand the very wide aspects of what's going on 
> here:  people invent a tag to mean "something" and perhaps it does for a 
> while, but it might get stretched with time and might morph to something 
> else.  And/or other tags emerge that better or "more newly" describe a scheme 
> to tag.  Meantime, there are rendering issues (some positive, some negative) 
> happening in parallel.  Even as people are mostly well-intentioned, this 
> process (especially as the project gets more mature and stretches across 
> generations of this happening, each cycle might be years or a decade) really 
> is complex and gives rise to all kinds of tangly, snarly misunderstandings.  
> Tread lightly, be cautious, try to be open-minded, have both a historical 
> understanding of how "meanings change over time" (even as we wish they 
> didn't" and "renderers change over time" (not always exactly in-line with 
> tagging schemes) as well as a willingness to expand context to the future.
> 
> And perhaps several other things I'm forgetting to mention... and we MIGHT be 
> able to better solve these issues.  We can solve them, we have to be smart, 
> patient and knowledgable about our past, looking to the future and aware of 
> how things drift and evolve.  That's tough, but doable.
> 
> Whew!
> SteveA
> 
>> On Mar 17, 2020, at 4:17 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Unlike some of those who responded, I was not intending this status to
>> be a "mark of shame", but rather informative.
>> 
>> As mentioned, some imported tags like "gnis:feature_id=*" are useful
>> to keep the Openstreetmap database object directly linked to an object
>> in an external database.
>> 
>> That's why I am not suggesting the use of "deprecated" or "obsolete",
>> since these tags should not necessarily be removed.
>> 
>> The main reason to mark them is so that mappers and database users
>> will understand where the tag came from, and it may suggest that
>> mappers will not want to add these tags to objects in the future,
>> unless they are also importing features from the same source.
>> 
>> Besides the tags mentioned above, I was thinking about tags like
>> "object:postcode=" and "object:housenumber" - this tag is only used in
>> Germany on "highway=street_lamp" features which appear to have been
>> imported mostly in 2015: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object
>> and see taghistory:
>> https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ and
>> 
>> So, though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to
>> know that these tags are not really being used, except in that
>> particular context. Apparently it makes sense in the context of the
>> addressing system there, at least according to the mappers who
>> imported the objects.
>> 
>> If a tag which was first used in an imported then becomes popular and
>> used frequently by. mappers for new or updated features, then it could
>> change to "in use" or even "de facto", just like a "draft" or
>> "proposed" tag can change status due to usage over time.
>> 
>> So, just like the status "draft", the status "import" would be a hint
>> for mappers and database users, but would not suggest that the tag
>> needs to be removed, and it might change status in the future based on
>> use by mappers.
>> 
>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>> 
>> On 3/18/20, Jmapb  wrote:
>>> On 3/17/2020 10:52 AM, Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk wrote:
 However, among your examples you cite "gnis:feature_id=*" The wiki
 page for this key notes:
 "Unlike other imported tags such as gnis:created=* and
 gnis:import_uuid=*, gnis:feature_id=* is meaningful beyond the import.
 In fact, some mappers actively add gnis:feature_id=* to features to
 cite a verifiable 

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Joseph Eisenberg]

> I don't think that swiching from addr:* to object:* on these objects is 
> correctly described by the term "mechanical edit".

Yes it was a mechanic/automated edit, because you switched all the tags at once

Not all mechanical edits are bad:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/What%27s_the_problem_with_mechanical_edits%3F

It sounds like you followed the Automated Edits code of conduct by
discussing the change with the local community first, and you mainly
edited objects that you had personally helped to map, so that is a
good example of an automated edit which was done according to best
practices:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/18/20, Harald Schwarz  wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the creation of the object:* tagging was the result of many remarks and
> disscussions. Most people agreed that the addr:* tag should be used
> only for buildings, shps, offices, etc.
>
> I thought that there was a need for an alternative addresing scheme that
> could be used without conflicting with the addr:* scheme.
> That was when I starteted to use the object:* scheme for the things I tagged
> in OSM.
>
> As I'm not only interrested in gas lamps but also in history culture and art
> I started to use this scheme for memorials and urban artwork.
> I conviced some people in my community to switch to this scheme and now more
> and more people use this scheme.
>
> I added a lot of Stolpersteine (memorial:type=stolperstein) and urban
> artwork (tourism=artwork) to the OSM database. All of them I visited
> personly and photos of this objects can be found on wikimedia commons.
>
> I have a very personal relation to these obects, visiting them in real
> world, during hot or cold weather, storing information about them
> to OSM in long concentrated sessions. I don't think that swiching from
> addr:* to object:* on these objects is correctly described by the
> term "mechanical edit".
>
> Mechanical edits are problematic in OSM as there might be change on
> something that doesn't exist anymore or needs a new survey at the place in
> real world.
> As I walk all this object from time to time, veryfing they still exist, I
> think that it is not ok to call my changes mechanical edits in the normal
> OSM sense.
>
> Friendly Greetings
>   Harald Schwarz
>   black_bike
>
>
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. März 2020 um 02:03 Uhr
>> Von: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
>> An: "Harald Schwarz" 
>> Betreff: Re: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki:
>> "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import
>>
>> Thank you for the information, Harald.
>>
>> > The peak in the graph, that you think indicates an import, is the result
>> > of switching fom the addr:*-style to the object:*-style.
>>
>> So it was not an import, but rather a mechanical edit. I will update
>> the object: page with this info.
>>
>> Do you know if a mechanical edit was also done for historic=memorial
>> features (with object:housenumber etc) around that time?
>>
>> -- Joseph Eisenberg
>>
>> On 3/18/20, Harald Schwarz  wrote:
>> > Dear Joseph, dear readers of this list,
>> >
>> > as you mention the street lamps of Düsseldorf here and thinking that
>> > they
>> > were an import to the OSM-database,
>> > I can tell you that this was not the case.
>> >
>> > Many of he streets of Düsseldorf, city of about 600_000 inhabitants,
>> > capital
>> > of Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany are lit by gaslight.
>> > About 15_000 gas lamps spent their glooming light every night. Each of
>> > this
>> > lamps has found it's way into the OSM database
>> > and even the status of streets lit by gaslight can be found in OSM.
>> >
>> > But this was not done by an import. It was a process, lasting many
>> > years,
>> > walking all the streets, stopping at every
>> > single gas lamp, taking photos and gps coordinates, later manualy
>> > storing
>> > the data to osm.
>> > The peak in the graph, that you think indicates an import, is the result
>> > of
>> > switching fom the addr:*-style to the object:*-style.
>> >
>> > Infos about the Düsseldorf Gaslight you can find in the OSM-Wiki under:
>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorf/Projekte/Gaslaternen
>> > You can watch the talk I gave at FOSSGIS 2019, Dresden :
>> > https://media.ccc.de/v/fossgis2019-556-erfassung-der-dsseldorfer-gasbeleuchtung
>> > .
>> >
>> > Mapping the gas lamps with OSM helped a lot to reach the status of
>> > national
>> > techical heritage.
>> > For this purpose maps and lists of all gas lamps in a suburb, in a
>> > street
>> > were created.
>> > This would not have been possible without the object:street tag.
>> >
>> > The object:* tag is not only useful for street lamps but can be used
>> > for
>> > memorials, urban artwork, technical infrastructure and many other
>> > things.
>> > Take a close look and see that other mappers started to use this tag
>> > for
>> > their own needs.
>> >
>> > With friendly greetings
>> >Harald Schwarz
>> >

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Harald Schwarz]

Hello,

the creation of the object:* tagging was the result of many remarks and 
disscussions. Most people agreed that the addr:* tag should be used
only for buildings, shps, offices, etc. 

I thought that there was a need for an alternative addresing scheme that could 
be used without conflicting with the addr:* scheme.
That was when I starteted to use the object:* scheme for the things I tagged in 
OSM.

As I'm not only interrested in gas lamps but also in history culture and art I 
started to use this scheme for memorials and urban artwork.
I conviced some people in my community to switch to this scheme and now more 
and more people use this scheme.

I added a lot of Stolpersteine (memorial:type=stolperstein) and urban artwork 
(tourism=artwork) to the OSM database. All of them I visited
personly and photos of this objects can be found on wikimedia commons. 

I have a very personal relation to these obects, visiting them in real world, 
during hot or cold weather, storing information about them
to OSM in long concentrated sessions. I don't think that swiching from addr:* 
to object:* on these objects is correctly described by the 
term "mechanical edit". 

Mechanical edits are problematic in OSM as there might be change on something 
that doesn't exist anymore or needs a new survey at the place in real world.
As I walk all this object from time to time, veryfing they still exist, I think 
that it is not ok to call my changes mechanical edits in the normal OSM sense.

Friendly Greetings
  Harald Schwarz
  black_bike 


> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. März 2020 um 02:03 Uhr
> Von: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
> An: "Harald Schwarz" 
> Betreff: Re: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: 
> "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import
>
> Thank you for the information, Harald.
> 
> > The peak in the graph, that you think indicates an import, is the result of 
> > switching fom the addr:*-style to the object:*-style.
> 
> So it was not an import, but rather a mechanical edit. I will update
> the object: page with this info.
> 
> Do you know if a mechanical edit was also done for historic=memorial
> features (with object:housenumber etc) around that time?
> 
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On 3/18/20, Harald Schwarz  wrote:
> > Dear Joseph, dear readers of this list,
> >
> > as you mention the street lamps of Düsseldorf here and thinking that they
> > were an import to the OSM-database,
> > I can tell you that this was not the case.
> >
> > Many of he streets of Düsseldorf, city of about 600_000 inhabitants, capital
> > of Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany are lit by gaslight.
> > About 15_000 gas lamps spent their glooming light every night. Each of this
> > lamps has found it's way into the OSM database
> > and even the status of streets lit by gaslight can be found in OSM.
> >
> > But this was not done by an import. It was a process, lasting many years,
> > walking all the streets, stopping at every
> > single gas lamp, taking photos and gps coordinates, later manualy storing
> > the data to osm.
> > The peak in the graph, that you think indicates an import, is the result of
> > switching fom the addr:*-style to the object:*-style.
> >
> > Infos about the Düsseldorf Gaslight you can find in the OSM-Wiki under:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorf/Projekte/Gaslaternen
> > You can watch the talk I gave at FOSSGIS 2019, Dresden :
> > https://media.ccc.de/v/fossgis2019-556-erfassung-der-dsseldorfer-gasbeleuchtung
> > .
> >
> > Mapping the gas lamps with OSM helped a lot to reach the status of national
> > techical heritage.
> > For this purpose maps and lists of all gas lamps in a suburb, in a street
> > were created.
> > This would not have been possible without the object:street tag.
> >
> > The object:* tag is not only useful for street lamps but can be used for
> > memorials, urban artwork, technical infrastructure and many other things.
> > Take a close look and see that other mappers started to use this tag for
> > their own needs.
> >
> > With friendly greetings
> >Harald Schwarz
> >black_bike
> >
> >> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. März 2020 um 00:17 Uhr
> >> Von: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
> >> An: talk@openstreetmap.org
> >> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import"
> >> for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import
> > 
> >>
> >> Besides the tags mentioned above, I was thinking about tags like
> >> "object:postcode=" and "object:housenumber" - this tag is only used in
> >> Germany on "highway=street_lamp" features which appear to have been
> >> imported mostly in 2015: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object
> >> and see taghistory:
> >> https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ and
> >>
> >> So, though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to
> >> know that these tags are not really being used, except in that
> >> particular context. Apparently it makes sense in the context of the
> >> addressing 

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Harald Schwarz via talk]

Dear Joseph, dear readers of this list,

as you mention the street lamps of Düsseldorf here and thinking that they were 
an import to the OSM-database,
I can tell you that this was not the case.

Many of he streets of Düsseldorf, city of about 600_000 inhabitants, capital of 
Northrhine-Westfalia, Germany are lit by gaslight.
About 15_000 gas lamps spent their glooming light every night. Each of this 
lamps has found it's way into the OSM database
and even the status of streets lit by gaslight can be found in OSM.

But this was not done by an import. It was a process, lasting many years, 
walking all the streets, stopping at every 
single gas lamp, taking photos and gps coordinates, later manualy storing the 
data to osm.
The peak in the graph, that you think indicates an import, is the result of 
switching fom the addr:*-style to the object:*-style.

Infos about the Düsseldorf Gaslight you can find in the OSM-Wiki under: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorf/Projekte/Gaslaternen
You can watch the talk I gave at FOSSGIS 2019, Dresden : 
https://media.ccc.de/v/fossgis2019-556-erfassung-der-dsseldorfer-gasbeleuchtung 
.

Mapping the gas lamps with OSM helped a lot to reach the status of national 
techical heritage. 
For this purpose maps and lists of all gas lamps in a suburb, in a street were 
created. 
This would not have been possible without the object:street tag.

The object:* tag is not only useful for street lamps but can be used for 
memorials, urban artwork, technical infrastructure and many other things.
Take a close look and see that other mappers started to use this tag for their 
own needs.

With friendly greetings
   Harald Schwarz
   black_bike

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. März 2020 um 00:17 Uhr
> Von: "Joseph Eisenberg" 
> An: talk@openstreetmap.org
> Betreff: Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" 
> for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

> 
> Besides the tags mentioned above, I was thinking about tags like
> "object:postcode=" and "object:housenumber" - this tag is only used in
> Germany on "highway=street_lamp" features which appear to have been
> imported mostly in 2015: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object
> and see taghistory:
> https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ and
> 
> So, though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to
> know that these tags are not really being used, except in that
> particular context. Apparently it makes sense in the context of the
> addressing system there, at least according to the mappers who
> imported the objects.

> 
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> 


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[stevea]

I would like to stress once again how easily it is for intended semantics of 
what is meant to be tagged, "improve-tagged" or "tag-modernized so that people 
understand the historical context of this tag" to diverge from the semantics 
that OTHER volunteers / contributors to OSM glean from these.  It is SO easy 
for these to be far apart and people to misunderstand one another.

This entire endeavor is fraught with peril and is one of the most slippery and 
dangerous (in the sense of hurt feelings due to misunderstandings, usually 
unintentional) in any scheme that has to do with "tagging," as in OSM with our 
tags (and their meant-to-be-static, though actually change through time) 
semantics.

Please, let's better understand the very wide aspects of what's going on here:  
people invent a tag to mean "something" and perhaps it does for a while, but it 
might get stretched with time and might morph to something else.  And/or other 
tags emerge that better or "more newly" describe a scheme to tag.  Meantime, 
there are rendering issues (some positive, some negative) happening in 
parallel.  Even as people are mostly well-intentioned, this process (especially 
as the project gets more mature and stretches across generations of this 
happening, each cycle might be years or a decade) really is complex and gives 
rise to all kinds of tangly, snarly misunderstandings.  Tread lightly, be 
cautious, try to be open-minded, have both a historical understanding of how 
"meanings change over time" (even as we wish they didn't" and "renderers change 
over time" (not always exactly in-line with tagging schemes) as well as a 
willingness to expand context to the future.

And perhaps several other things I'm forgetting to mention... and we MIGHT be 
able to better solve these issues.  We can solve them, we have to be smart, 
patient and knowledgable about our past, looking to the future and aware of how 
things drift and evolve.  That's tough, but doable.

Whew!
SteveA

> On Mar 17, 2020, at 4:17 PM, Joseph Eisenberg  
> wrote:
> 
> Unlike some of those who responded, I was not intending this status to
> be a "mark of shame", but rather informative.
> 
> As mentioned, some imported tags like "gnis:feature_id=*" are useful
> to keep the Openstreetmap database object directly linked to an object
> in an external database.
> 
> That's why I am not suggesting the use of "deprecated" or "obsolete",
> since these tags should not necessarily be removed.
> 
> The main reason to mark them is so that mappers and database users
> will understand where the tag came from, and it may suggest that
> mappers will not want to add these tags to objects in the future,
> unless they are also importing features from the same source.
> 
> Besides the tags mentioned above, I was thinking about tags like
> "object:postcode=" and "object:housenumber" - this tag is only used in
> Germany on "highway=street_lamp" features which appear to have been
> imported mostly in 2015: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object
> and see taghistory:
> https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ and
> 
> So, though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to
> know that these tags are not really being used, except in that
> particular context. Apparently it makes sense in the context of the
> addressing system there, at least according to the mappers who
> imported the objects.
> 
> If a tag which was first used in an imported then becomes popular and
> used frequently by. mappers for new or updated features, then it could
> change to "in use" or even "de facto", just like a "draft" or
> "proposed" tag can change status due to usage over time.
> 
> So, just like the status "draft", the status "import" would be a hint
> for mappers and database users, but would not suggest that the tag
> needs to be removed, and it might change status in the future based on
> use by mappers.
> 
> -- Joseph Eisenberg
> 
> On 3/18/20, Jmapb  wrote:
>> On 3/17/2020 10:52 AM, Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk wrote:
>>> However, among your examples you cite "gnis:feature_id=*" The wiki
>>> page for this key notes:
>>> "Unlike other imported tags such as gnis:created=* and
>>> gnis:import_uuid=*, gnis:feature_id=* is meaningful beyond the import.
>>> In fact, some mappers actively add gnis:feature_id=* to features to
>>> cite a verifiable source for the POI's existence or its name."
>> 
>> Agree with clemency for gnis:feature_id -- it's handy to be able to
>> crossreference features with the GNIS database, which you can search by
>> feature id here: https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:1:0:
>> 
>> J
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> talk mailing list
>> talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>> 
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk 

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Joseph Eisenberg]

Unlike some of those who responded, I was not intending this status to
be a "mark of shame", but rather informative.

As mentioned, some imported tags like "gnis:feature_id=*" are useful
to keep the Openstreetmap database object directly linked to an object
in an external database.

That's why I am not suggesting the use of "deprecated" or "obsolete",
since these tags should not necessarily be removed.

The main reason to mark them is so that mappers and database users
will understand where the tag came from, and it may suggest that
mappers will not want to add these tags to objects in the future,
unless they are also importing features from the same source.

Besides the tags mentioned above, I was thinking about tags like
"object:postcode=" and "object:housenumber" - this tag is only used in
Germany on "highway=street_lamp" features which appear to have been
imported mostly in 2015: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:object
and see taghistory:
https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ and

So, though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to
know that these tags are not really being used, except in that
particular context. Apparently it makes sense in the context of the
addressing system there, at least according to the mappers who
imported the objects.

If a tag which was first used in an imported then becomes popular and
used frequently by. mappers for new or updated features, then it could
change to "in use" or even "de facto", just like a "draft" or
"proposed" tag can change status due to usage over time.

So, just like the status "draft", the status "import" would be a hint
for mappers and database users, but would not suggest that the tag
needs to be removed, and it might change status in the future based on
use by mappers.

-- Joseph Eisenberg

On 3/18/20, Jmapb  wrote:
> On 3/17/2020 10:52 AM, Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk wrote:
>> However, among your examples you cite "gnis:feature_id=*" The wiki
>> page for this key notes:
>> "Unlike other imported tags such as gnis:created=* and
>> gnis:import_uuid=*, gnis:feature_id=* is meaningful beyond the import.
>> In fact, some mappers actively add gnis:feature_id=* to features to
>> cite a verifiable source for the POI's existence or its name."
>
> Agree with clemency for gnis:feature_id -- it's handy to be able to
> crossreference features with the GNIS database, which you can search by
> feature id here: https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:1:0:
>
> J
>
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>

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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Jmapb]

On 3/17/2020 10:52 AM, Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk wrote:

However, among your examples you cite "gnis:feature_id=*" The wiki
page for this key notes:
"Unlike other imported tags such as gnis:created=* and
gnis:import_uuid=*, gnis:feature_id=* is meaningful beyond the import.
In fact, some mappers actively add gnis:feature_id=* to features to
cite a verifiable source for the POI's existence or its name."


Agree with clemency for gnis:feature_id -- it's handy to be able to
crossreference features with the GNIS database, which you can search by
feature id here: https://geonames.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=138:1:0:

J


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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Greg Troxel]

I think it's reasonable to mark something as

  this was used by an import long ago, isn't used by mappers now, and
  the existence of it shouldn't be taken as a clue that it's current
  good practice

but I think this should also be done in a way that is not unkind to or
judgemental about long-ago importers.  That was a different time, with
different norms, and reasonable people were doing what they thought was
a good thing.  (In my view, mostly it was good, and the issues are
minor, but that's not really the point.)

So something like

  historical_import

to basically say "people used these tags in imports long ago, but there
is no present use, import or otherwise".




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Wayne Emerson, Jr. via talk]

Some other possible values:

undesirable
unnecessary
unwanted
unneeded
undiscussed
disapproved
clutter

However, among your examples you cite "gnis:feature_id=*" The wiki page 
for this key notes:
"Unlike other imported tags such as gnis:created=* and 
gnis:import_uuid=*, gnis:feature_id=* is meaningful beyond the import. 
In fact, some mappers actively add gnis:feature_id=* to features to cite 
a verifiable source for the POI's existence or its name."


But yes there are a lot of unnecessary gnis tags
gnis:County=*
gnis:County_num=*
gnis:ST_alpha=*
gnis:ST_num=*


On 3/17/2020 5:52 AM, Warin wrote:

On 17/3/20 8:22 pm, Marc M. wrote:

Hello Joseph,

it may give the impression that this is the way it should be done.
I agree to identify these "Noise" or poor quality tags, but with a
keyword to show that it's a problem. e.g. status=bad, disputed, error, ...
it would be necessary to find a word that is not as strong as error,
but which nevertheless clearly indicates that this is not an example to
follow.



Agree with both.
Possible values?
obsolete
abandoned
discarded
  
archaic
passe
stale





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



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Colin Smale]

"unmaintained"? 

On 17 March 2020 10:52:39 CET, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 17/3/20 8:22 pm, Marc M. wrote:
>> Hello Joseph,
>>
>> it may give the impression that this is the way it should be done.
>> I agree to identify these "Noise" or poor quality tags, but with a
>> keyword to show that it's a problem. e.g. status=bad, disputed,
>error, ...
>> it would be necessary to find a word that is not as strong as error,
>> but which nevertheless clearly indicates that this is not an example
>to
>> follow.
>>
>
>Agree with both.
>
>Possible values?
>
>obsolete
>
>abandoned
>
>discarded
>
>
>
>archaic
>
>passe
>
>stale
>
>
>
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Warin]

The one I am thinking of comes from HOT activity. There is no link to an 
import proposal, they just use 'any tag they like' .. and leave it there 
undocumented.


On 17/3/20 8:59 pm, François Lacombe wrote:

Hi all

My 2cts : "in use" status and statuslink to the import proposal would 
be enough, right?
Point is to determine where does the tag come from, and it's done by 
statuslink, not status which reflect the current state of use.


All the best

François

Le mar. 17 mars 2020 à 10:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com 
> a écrit :


On 17/3/20 8:22 pm, Marc M. wrote:

Hello Joseph,

it may give the impression that this is the way it should be done.
I agree to identify these "Noise" or poor quality tags, but with a
keyword to show that it's a problem. e.g. status=bad, disputed, error, ...
it would be necessary to find a word that is not as strong as error,
but which nevertheless clearly indicates that this is not an example to
follow.



Agree with both.

Possible values?

obsolete

abandoned

discarded

  

archaic

passe

stale



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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[François Lacombe]

Hi all

My 2cts : "in use" status and statuslink to the import proposal would be
enough, right?
Point is to determine where does the tag come from, and it's done by
statuslink, not status which reflect the current state of use.

All the best

François

Le mar. 17 mars 2020 à 10:55, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> a écrit :

> On 17/3/20 8:22 pm, Marc M. wrote:
>
> Hello Joseph,
>
> it may give the impression that this is the way it should be done.
> I agree to identify these "Noise" or poor quality tags, but with a
> keyword to show that it's a problem. e.g. status=bad, disputed, error, ...
> it would be necessary to find a word that is not as strong as error,
> but which nevertheless clearly indicates that this is not an example to
> follow.
>
>
>
> Agree with both.
>
> Possible values?
>
> obsolete
>
> abandoned
>
> discarded
>
>  
>
> archaic
>
> passe
>
> stale
>
>
>
> 
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Warin]

On 17/3/20 8:22 pm, Marc M. wrote:

Hello Joseph,

it may give the impression that this is the way it should be done.
I agree to identify these "Noise" or poor quality tags, but with a
keyword to show that it's a problem. e.g. status=bad, disputed, error, ...
it would be necessary to find a word that is not as strong as error,
but which nevertheless clearly indicates that this is not an example to
follow.



Agree with both.

Possible values?

obsolete

abandoned

discarded

 

archaic

passe

stale




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

Re: [OSM-talk] Proposed new status for tags in the wiki: "import" for undiscussed tags that were only used by an import

[Marc M.]

Hello Joseph,

it may give the impression that this is the way it should be done.
I agree to identify these "Noise" or poor quality tags, but with a
keyword to show that it's a problem. e.g. status=bad, disputed, error, ...
it would be necessary to find a word that is not as strong as error,
but which nevertheless clearly indicates that this is not an example to
follow.

Regards,
Marc

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