Not in reply to this specific email, but I've done a bit of tidying amonst keys and values the last three days, and I've documented some of my findings which might give food for thought:
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/b-unicycling/diary/400164 (I hope you like footnotes...:-) ) Anne On 07/10/2022 11:11, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
who cares for "in use" or "approved", the question is only whether there are alternative tags available, in which case you either have to decide or put both. The voting isn't binding, at most it could be relevant if there is an alternative value for the same key. So while this could be seen as a conceptual problem, it does not really matter IMHO for actual tagging. In practice I would not "approve" the whole chain up, just because one particular value was approved, and if I were the proponent of this tag, I would use it also if it got rejected, unless it was rejected by other people familiar with the domain or area where these occur, and they would propose a better alternative. Also because you cannot rely on the information given in the wiki. I just changed the "site_type" key to de facto, because this is what it is. Furthermore also site_type=settlement could be seen as de-facto, but I did not make this edit immediately because I see there is maybe some more wiggle room to see it still as "only" in significant use (3600 times) without alternatives proposed as far as I can see. Cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
