On 16/12/2022 07:33, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging wrote:
If this edit was in violation of
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct
then I would recommend notifying DWG
(for the avoidance of any doubt) I am a member of the DWG, but this was
not raised with the DWG as an issue. I just encountered it as an
ordinary mapper, albeit one with rather more experience of this sort of
thing than most people.
Essentially, "I gave myself the advice that I would have given had it
been reported to the DWG" - look at the data that has changed and the
time that has passed, and figure out the best way forward. As I said
yesterday "Normally I'd suggest just reverting your undiscussed
mechanical edits ... but this far on from the change I'm not convinced
that would be the best approach". However I do believe that the people
responsible for this mess tidy up the data in the wiki and fix the
broken links.
As an aside, the code required to handle these objects has grown by 50%
(from 33 lines to 50), partly because "diplomatic" sort of is a primary
tag and sort of isn't ("office=diplomatic" is still a thing), and now
includes comedy "no=yes" checks like '( keyvalues["diplomatic"] ==
"non_diplomatic")'
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L1885
, but I suspect that that ship has sailed a long time ago.
There hasn't yet been an acceptance that the approach used to change
these tags was wrong (see
https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117329397 ). To be clear - tag
consolidation (where many tags really do mean the same thing) is a good
idea, provided that the new schema isn't completely bonkers and
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct is
followed to the letter. Plenty of people do that (including you!)
without causing any complaints.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
