On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 1:29 PM, <Greg Troxel <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Tobias Knerr <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 27.05.2013 00:47, Greg Troxel wrote: > >> > >> Hannes <[email protected]> writes: > >>> Sorry, I was not aware of that policy. I will discuss such edits in > future. > >>> Please revert if they are unreasonable > >> > >> You should revert them yourself. If you aren't comfortable doing > >> reverts, you should not be running a bot. > > > > I disagree - he should not revert his previous edits which were genuine > > improvements. If anything at all, he could revert this particular edit > > of *=recreation_ground ways. But if you actually believe that it was > > wrong, you could just as well do it yourself - it will be dealt with > > faster that way. > > I meant only to comment on the {leisure/landuse}=recreation_ground issue. > > To clarify, my commit message was probably not correctly worded. The change was for features that contained *both* landuse=recreation_ground and leisure=recreation_ground. Having recreation_ground twice with one tag documented (proposed and accepted) and the other not seemed to me superfluous. > > I also want to point out that Hannes is not "running a bot". He is, > > apparently, simply using JOSM. > > I looked at the changeset and it had a bounding box that was > approximately global. Sorry for jumping to conclusion of "bot", but > this also doesn't seem to be "I looked at each item and thought about > it". Loading lots of data in josm and using a plugin to change many > things at once is not so different than a bot. > > >> Fixing typos is one thing, > >> but your leisure->landuse changes are not in the category of "99.5% of > >> mappers think that they are obviously correct fixes". > > > > In the case of recreation_ground, I agree that the number of uses of > > leisure=recreation_ground should have tipped him off that this might not > > be an uncontroversial edit. > > leisure=recreation_ground is 1.4% of all leisure tags, with 24,011 uses, > That's not only nowhere near fringe, it makes the first page of taginfo! > > http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/leisure#values > > I think it used to be documented, but the wiki doesn't show it now. I > don't know if that's because it never was documented, or because the > documentation has been wikifiddled out of existence. I don't mean to > suggest anything in particular about this case, but I have perceived > attempts to change things in the past by first changing the wiki and > then claiming it's ok to change tags because of what the wiki says. > Done publically with discussion, that's progress of course. > > landuse=recreation_ground on the other hand, I can't find in taginfo. > But it is there actually, http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=landuse%3Drecreation_ground. Though I have to admit I overlooked the correct number of leisure=recreation_ground > There really are multiple different kinds of places (overgeneralizing a > bit, I know) > > 1) park: landscaped, not natural, but has grass > > 2) conservation with human hiking/etc. welcome > > 3) conservation with human activity not welcome > > I use leisure=nature_reserve for 3 and leisure=recreation_ground for 2. > The point about 2 is that for many areas, they are legally designated > conservation, and some commission can decide whether to allow > hiking/cycling/ATVs/snowmobiles/horses etc. just by making rules. But > to do anything other than "conservation" requires (in my state) a vote > of the commission, the entire voters of the town, and an Act of the > legislature, more or less. So it's totally fair to say > landuse=conservation because that's the primary purpose. > > > But with the other changes, things are different. I believe that > > changing a handful instances of an undocumented tag to an obviously > > synonymous tag that *is* documented and much more widely used (e.g. > > 1000x in the case of village green) is valuable cleanup work fully > > comparable to fixing typos. Without patient contributors silently > > performing routine housekeeping like that, our database would be even > > more messy than it already is. > > I didn't complain about that. I agree that some regularization is > fine, esp. from tags that are all of > > changing from undocumented to documented. > > changing from uncommon to significant weight in taginfo > > obvious to the locals in the country being changed the the replacement > tag is better > > That's why I said "99.5% of mappers think it's obviously a fix". If > that's true, no need to discuss. > > Another valuable thing to do would be to look at the tails of taginfo > and find things that have 2 uses, and look at them and pick more common > tags that are equally descriptive. That's very hard if you are not > local. So it would be cool to have a query that says "show me tags that > are globally odd that occur in some area", so local data stewards could > do local cleanup. (I have been adjusting > recreation_ground/nature_reserve tags around me, but they are in areas > I've hiked through.) > > Thanks - I think this is a useful discussion. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
