Hi, Le jeu. 16 févr. 2023 à 14:36, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit :
> > Have you compared increase in activity with change in OSM activity in > general > or other unrelated object types where no such changes happened? > For example other power network tagging where no such proposal happened > or happened at a different time? > > It seems dubious to attribute that change solely to this deprecation. > OSM activity grows irregularly while we clearly see before and after situation following each vote. Here, the contribution rate is almost constant since 2014 vote and isn't correlated to OSM activity curve. Global contribution may have a long term influence yes, but the short-term inductor is encouragement from proposal discussion and vote. Let's plot it: https://imgur.com/a/YvCqOk1 (Sorry for French, took from the sotm-fr slides. Proposal steps, Brouillon=Draft, Discussion=RFC, Accepté=Approved) > More likely seems that whatever reason caused greater interest resulted in > the > increased mapping activity and tagging proposals. > Not that tagging proposals resulted in greater activity. > If that were accurate, we would seen the increase prior the proposal, not after its vote and post vote improvements. Not to mention many proposals would be down voted due to increasing usage of what is proposed to be changed, seen as establishment before vote begins. That's the case for substation refinement proposal: power=sub_station usage grew by 50% between the beginning of draft and vote. Some opponent argued that changed tagging was abundantly used. > Is it possible that change in tag use was result of imports? > That probable, and likely local imports, at city scale. I've noticed some of them along years. Whatever imports or not, both data availability and osm tagging model availability may have encouraged it. It's included in the contribution rate. No worldwide, continental nor country scale import so far. > * In 2018, replacement of voltage-high/voltage-low by > voltage:primary/voltage:secondary > Respectively 6200 + 4600 in 8 years (1350/year) versus 110000+95000 in 5 > years (41k/year) => x30 > > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/voltage%3Aprimary#chronology has > clear > sign of import/bot edits > > no idea why you would attribute that to tagging proposal > Because import / bot edits were triggered by the proposal which introduced this particular tagging change. voltage:primary didn't even exist prior the proposal. > > * In 2021, replacement of tower:type=branch by line_management=branch or > split or cross > Respectively 3600 in 7 years (515/year) versus 22030 in 2 years (11k/year) > => x21 > > here using tower:type was a clear mistake, so making tagging this detail > more acceptable > could have a good effects. > > Though not sure had this tag change had any serious opposition. > Serious or not, the replacement was discussed and the establishment of tower:type was raised https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Lines_management#Should_we_really_deprecate_such_a_common_tag ? > Regarding the valuable point you make on tagging meta data making osm tags > invisible for common users, I wonder why we are busy with writing readable > proposals and then stuck on updating manually every toolchain with the same > information. > > because various tool do different things with OSM data > Doing different tasks isn't a valid argument to expect contributors providing the same information several times instead of finding it once, at the right place the information belongs. It's inconsistent prone (from language to another, from tool to another...) and precisely what we suffer from. Best regards François
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
