Re: "this key is from an ancient abandoned proposal, it does not need a detailed documentation page"
That's a bit of an exageration. This tag, building:cladding, was added more frequently than building material from 2009 through 2012, according to taghistory (there was a big import of building:material in late 2010, but after that the number of ways with building:material actually decreased for the next 2 years, till it started increasing again late 2012). It's still in use 35,000 times, so I think it's reasonable to document how it is used. I suppose it depends on whether you see this wiki as mainly documenting tag use or prescribing a recommended tagging method; for tags that were not discussed widely I like to just document how they are used and let readers make mapping decisions based on the facts. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, I admit that I was exaggerating a bit. But I just don't see a good reason to upset the status quo in this case. There's an established key for this (building:material), it's successfully used by many applications, it has editor support, is properly documented and part of a larger framework of tags that has mostly stood the test of time. Why risk fracturing tag usage by increasing the visibility of much more rarely used synonyms?
- And yes, I believe offering guidance on tagging and encouraging standardization is one of the most important roles of the wiki. Unfortunately, I suspect the presence of well-maintained documentation pages is a much stronger signal for the average reader than a tiny approval status field or a sentence or two in the page's text. If mappers search the wiki for a term like "building cladding" and find a beautifully curated page that's well illustrated with pictures which look exactly like the object they are trying to map, chances are that quite a few of them are going to use that tag rather than continuing their search by following links. --Tordanik 18:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)