From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article move

Since this is a proposal I suggest it be moved to either an actual proposal, RTFM's user space, or deleted. As proposals shouldn't take up the main article space and they should have actual proposals anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

It's okay to document a tag that is actually in use. But I do wonder if the description is correct. Is it only for boat sails sales, or also for repair, rental etc?
Only 7 uses by as little users is a tad below my "in use" threshold. But to each his own I guess. Although, I do wonder what the point in proposals are if you can go that low without needing one. Personally, to me what makes something a proposed versus "in use" isnt the raw usage numbers per say anyway. Its more about if a person takes a tag under their wing by creating an article about it and recomending its use to everyone (or plastering it all over articles). Especially if said user has done thr most % of tagging of it. Which is why I think its one in this case. Ultimately all possible tags probably have been used at least some at some point. So that shouldnt be the deciding factor. That's ehy I decided to do a rental tag 2.0 proposal when I didnt have to. Since I'm spreading it around its on me see if it can be more widely adopted and address peoples concerns about it if there any. RTFM shouldnt be able to create articles for tag with very little use, spread them around indescrimtely, and then not explain them or claim problems with them arent on him because "hey, it was tagged once before I got involved. So its not on me. I just edit war and insult people over them even though they aren't my tags." I wouldnt really call this or any of the other articles he creates about his tags "documenting them" either.
I agree with your other thing though. The meaning really isnt clear. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

sails:sales or boat_sails:sales instead?

Rtfm, I don't quite understand why you are using "boat:sails=yes". In your other pages, you promote the format <feature>:sales=yes/no. Shouldn't this be sails:sales=yes/no, or perhaps boat_sails:sales=yes/no? I don't think the word "sails" is used for anything other than the sheets of sailing vessels in English, so the "boat" prefix isn't really needed. But if you want it, perhaps it should be boat_sails:sales= or boat:sails:sales= to fit the pattern. I do recommend making a proposal so that all of these things can be discussed by people who are interested in the subject. --Jeisenbe (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Its not sails:sales=* because that would break his whole boat:whatever namespace "tagging scheme" and wouldnt fit with the others. There are sails for other things besides boats though. Like with windsurfing and some land vehicles that have sails. So I agree it would better not to pigonhole it to just boats, but I also agree that it should be a proposal. That said, a much simpler thing would just be sells(or sales)=sails. Its not uber useful to say what specific object something is for since parts are usually object specific and can be (or are) used on many different things. Technically there is no "boat sails", there's "sails that are used on boats." Those are different things. So it could as likely be sails:boat. Which is part of the problem. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jeisenbe : I'd understand the question in case there was a tag shop=sails. But in this case, it's all about boats, so this should stand as the "prefix", right ? (usual namespace syntax). You could also use boat:sails=repair, for example.But as I said, if there was a "main" tag sails, it would get complicated whether to use sails:repair=* instead. On the other hand, I see no problems if a shop=car also offers motorcycle:repair=yes, atv:sales=yes or trailer:rental=yes. A shop=electonics could offer mobile_phone:repair also (and so on). user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Why aren't sails just covered by the boat:parts namespace? You even mention it as being an option in that artice. Its like you've created namespaces for so many random things at this point you cant even track of them. This one just seems like more namespace creation for its own sake, instead of because anyone, including you, actually needs it. With this and other namespace options for tagging one thing we would have boat:sales=sails, boat:sails=sales, boat:parts=sails, or any other number of similar combinations because they are all interchangable and neither option is any better then the others. Plus, Im sure there's one I'm missing. And you say this is the simpler way to tag things and that I'm a dumb troll for being against it. Shrug. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Ships also have sails, not only boats. I think you may be "over-namespacing" here: it's not necessary to add multiple prefixes. --Jeisenbe (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2020 (UTC)