Talk:Tag:boundary=water protection area

Why?

This page has no right to exist, because the tag boundary=water_protection_area is barely in use, has no proposal, and is obviously just an unnecessary shortcut for boundary=protected_area + protect_class=12. --Fkv (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap has free tagging, and it is appropriate to document all tags that are in use, even if that usage is small. Reciprocal links are in place between this tag, protect_class=*, and landuse=reservoir_watershed, all of which have been used to tag water protection areas, and none of which are approved. Mappers are free to examine the documentation and make their own decisions as to which tagging to use. If you wish to propose that a tag be deprecated, you can use the proposal process to do so.

You say that it's appropriate to document tags that are in use, but this tag is not in use. This tag belongs in the list of possible tagging errors at best. When it is documented like a proper tag, it misleads people who search the wiki for a tag for a certain purpose and then find the wrong tag as prominent as the right tag in the search results. That's a sneaky way to boost its usage count out of nowhere. --Fkv (talk) 07:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, you have a misconception about "in use". Please see this discussion on Talk:Wiki. "in use" describes any tag that is used. There is no minimum usage needed for a tag to be "in use". Once a tag becomes widely used, it can change to "de facto". The author of this tag documented its use in 2017, so it is not an error but an intentional usage. The taginfo is listed in the info box, and mappers are free to consider that information also. It is not for you or me to decide which tags are documented and which tags are not -- that is for mappers to decide. If you wish to propose that one of these variants should be an approved tag, or should be deprecated, you may do so using the proposal process. As it stands right now, none of the documented alternatives (landuse=reservoir_watershed, protect_class=12, or boundary=water_protection_area) have been approved, and none of them have been deprecated. Thus, they stay documented as "in use" as a valid description of how mappers are actually using tags. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't tell me that I have a misconception when it's you who has it. A discussion is impossible like this. boundary=protected_area is a long accepted standard with 80308 instances, boundary=water_protection_area has 185. --Fkv (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you have a misconception. The wiki is not just a directory of approved tagging (although that is, of course documented), it is informational documentation of how tagging is actually used, and this tag is used and documented, and there is nothing wrong with that. If you wish to deprecate this tag, take it up with the tagging list or via the Proposal process. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Classification

We shouldn't put this wrong use of level=* in Tag:boundary=water protection area#Combination, even if no proper alternatives has been suggested. Move it to a new section, eg about unresolved issues. ---- Kovposch (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree - this is certainly a wrong usage level=* per that tag's documentation. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)