Hi Brian, Thank you for your comments
Le lun. 14 déc. 2020 à 00:40, Brian M. Sperlongano <zelonew...@gmail.com> a écrit : > 1. The proposal states "It is proposed to discourage the use of > undocumented pump:type=* to state pump mechanisms in favour of new > pump_mechanism=*." It is not clear what is meant by "discourage" in this > context. Given the other threads today regarding reservoirs, it is > important to communicate clearly what we mean when we propose to stop using > a tag. I would ask that instead of "discourage", that the proposal should > explicitly say "deprecate" so that there is no confusion that you intend > for us to stop using pump:type and document it as deprecated in the > deprecated features list. Otherwise, I would ask that you clearly and > explicitly state what you mean by "discourage" and where those words of > discouragement would go. > To me, discourage means provide a better way to describe features and encourage people to do so. Reviewing a proposal and vote approval is a step and additional work has to be done in that way. I remember a discussion in my early OSM years about sense of "deprecated", "discouraged", "approved", "reviewed"... and I'm now merely in favour of encouraging and discouraging than enforcing or forbidding pump:type isn't documented currently, then how could it be added to any deprecated features list? The proposal aims to make pump_mechanism approved and then pump:type could be added to its wiki page as a possible duplicate. Furthermore, :type suffixes make things complex and don't bring any additional information as anything is a type or category of something here. Any opportunity to move them to simpler key should be used. > 2. You propose to deprecate man_made=pumping_rig and propose to replace > it with the (far more popular) man_made=petroleum_well. Both of these are > combined with the substance=* key. I would ask whether there are usages of > pumping_rig that are being used with substance=* tags for non-petroleum > products (i.e. not oil/natural gas) which would be lost by abandoning this > pumping_rig? If the answer is "yes", then I would support simply changing > the description of pumping_rig to explicitly exclude petroleum products, > and if the answer is "no" then I agree with deprecating it. > I've updated to proposal to include man_made=water_well if the pumping rig was intended to get water from ground and i'm not aware of other usage than petroleum or water currently. It seems that no information would be lost from such a manual replacement. By the way, we had a short discussion here about replacing man_made=petroleum_well and man_made=water_well with a more generic value for any well to be combined with substance=* to state what the well is intended for. As always it's hard to replace widely used tags, but it would improve semantics and enable to distinguish wells for hot water and geothermal plants. All the best François
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
