On 26/08/19 23:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote:
Yes, I agree that for something like landcover=hedge an even stronger
warning is needed.
Some context for why Warin and I are talking about this: The second
section of the key page Key:produce has long mentioned the
differences between produce=* and product=*.
I added to that section, mentioning that crop=* is used more
frequently than produce=* to specify the annual crops grown on
farmland, and trees=*, used more frequently than produce=* to specify
the trees found in an orchard. I probably should have mentioned that
aquaculture=* is the more common tag to specify the type of organisim
in a landuse=aquaculture feature (e.g. shrimp).
But this addition was first reverted, and after I restored it, now it
has been moved it to a "See Also" section. I disagree with this. if we
are going to mention the difference between produce=* and product=*,
there should be a mention of the other tags, otherwise it appears that
product=* is the only similar or overlapping or synonymous tag that
needs to be considered before picking produce=*.
The addition was between the 'disambiguation of produce and product' and
external links that give further information on the 'disambiguation of produce
and product'.
As such it broke the information structure and the function of that section.
If cop and tree needs to be mentioned high in the order of the produce page
then produce needs to be similarly mentioned on the crop and tree page.
There was also a statement added that "crop=* can not be used for all
produce=*, but produce=* can be used for all crop=*" which is not
accurate, based on usage of the tags in the database.
Based on the descriptions of 'crop' and 'produce', 'crop' is a subset of
'produce'. Not a matter of frequency of occurrence.
I would prefer that a proposal be made to deprecate a key (eg to
replace crop=*, trees=* and aquaculture=* with produce=*), if this is
the intention, rather than removing or de-emphasizing factual
information that does not fit a certain narrative.
Then propose it.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Key:produce#Crop_should_not_be_added_to_the_disambiguation_of_produce_vs_product_section
On 8/26/19, Paul Allen <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 13:18, Joseph Eisenberg <[email protected]>
wrote:
I agree, Paul.
The most important things on a wiki page are 1) The description of the
tag: what sort of feature or property does it represent and 2) How
does one distinguish it from overlapping tags? Both of these should be
in the first paragraph / section.
For example, see highway=raceway:
(https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway=raceway)
"A racetrack for motorised racing, eg cars, motorbikes and karts.
For cycling, running, horses, greyhounds etc, use leisure=track."
highway=unclassified
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dunclassified
"The tag highway=unclassified is used for minor public roads typically
at the lowest level of the interconnecting grid network. Unclassified
roads have lower importance in the road network than {{tag|tertiary}}
roads, and are not residential streets or agricultural tracks...."
For those examples, that is OK. But those are along the lines of "this
tag applies to this particular situation, there are similar situations
where
a different tag should be used." In the case of landcover=hedge it's
more of "This is a bad tag. Use this instead." (I paraphrase, you'd
phrase it more diplomatically) and should be in its own section right
at the very start. With a warning icon. Because once you know that,
there is no point reading the rest of it.
--
Paul
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
