Tomas, Since you are not willing to accept (1) an existing approved proposal, (2) new proposal to correct flaws in the first one, or (3) the overwhelming preference of the mapping community over the past four years[1], then I'm sorry but we must curtly dismiss your arguments as a one-man crusade[2,3,4] against tagging which you do not like. It is clear that you wish to impose your views on the community regardless of what the consensus is. If there is truly a community of mappers out there that share your view, it should be easy to convince them to come and vote. Since you are not willing to accept the democratic process that we have established, and you do not respect the viewpoints of others, all you are doing is wasting our time. Thus I ask you, respectfully, to stop.
If there are others here that desire a proposal for the purpose of documenting that landuse=reservoir is deprecated, I will gladly do so. With no proposal, the status quo will remain: landuse=reservoir will continue to be steadily replaced with water=reservoir, and our wiki will remain confusing in its documentation of these tags. [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:ZeLonewolf/Analysis/Reservoir [2] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/7382 [3] https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6589 [4] https://josm.openstreetmap.de/ticket/17874 On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 8:32 AM Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If you believe that your argument in favor of tagging reservoirs as > landuse is > > strong, then you should have no objection to placing this question up > for a > > community vote, and allowing the community the freedom to decide. > > Brian, landuse=reservoir is the ORIGINAL and ACTIVE schema. Why > should anybody propose the vote for it? > > I do not like voting on wiki because it is clearly a flawed process > (as discusses a number of times), what do 20 wiki participants/people > mean against the actual mappers? We could end up in the same situation > as with original water=reservoir proposal where somebody with barely > few months of participation in OSM and no knowledge of GIS/Carto > makes/influences the decision/proposal... > > And what is a problem of listing benefits of water=reservoir schema? > If there are none, then the only logical decision is to deprecate > water=reservoir, because it would make it worse of the two. Shouldn't > we get ARGUMENTS before we go to any kind of voting/decision? > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
