Beet is an American English, Beetroot is UK English and should be used in OSM. I have changed the page to reflect this. At present there are some 550 uses, mostly in northern Italy. I have made comment on a very few change sets and see what the response is. Warin61 (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like there are many different kinds - sugarbeet being another main crop. So back to the generic 'beet'. Warin61 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Crops only - no infrastructure
Crops only - no tree/field
Unless the area is a nursery then the crop is the produce e.g. a pear, not the tree e.g. pear_tree so the crop values should not have either tree nor field in it. Warin61 (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Adding crop keys
We are currently in the process of collecting data for the OpenStreetMap app StreetComplete. Therefore we identified some missing crops, which we'd like to add.
See https://github.com/westnordost/StreetComplete/issues/368 for the whole project. Using a parser (https://github.com/rugk/crops-parser) we identified some missing crops. Before adding them, I'll list them here, so you can discuss anything if wanted:
Chillies and peppers- green crop=pepper orchard Chillies and peppers- dry crop=pepper orchard Jute & Jute-like Fibres crop=jute farmland Jute crop=jute farmland Vanilla crop=vanilla orchard Sisal crop=sisal farmland Cinnamon crop=cinnamon orchard
I'll add another list for the tree keys on the corresponding wiki page.
Happy to hear any feedback.
Replace with produce key?
Should this key be replaced by produce=*? That looks to provide similar if not the same information, and it is better documented. Produce is also more usable across other keys for example shops=* as well as landuse=*. Taginfo is busy at the moment otherwise I'd compare the database usages. Warin61 (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
- I don't think that this should be pursued. Which problem do you exactly have with the documentation?--Constantino (talk) 12:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- That comment was made almost 1 year ago. Since then there have been a few edits. The grouping and remove of unused values. The main problem I have is that the order of the thing is not an order I recognise ... so I find it disorganised. The group titles do not stand out nor are they shown in the contents. I also note the removal of a link to the produce key. So I have remove the link to crop from the produce key. This will mean mappers will find it harder to see the competing tags. I do think that the produce=* is usable across more keys that the crop key and so would be preferred by data consumers as it eases the data interpretation. Warin61 (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- "Preferred by data consumers" is such an weasel argument. Who are these actual data customers? For API customers it doesn't matter how many keys are there and for people rendering maps (like me) it costs them a little bit of performance to read in more keys. But on the other hand the style may need fewer exceptions if keys are only used with one feature.--Constantino (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, can you – all – please pull yourself together! It's totally useless to remove links to other pages, because they were removed from one page. You may not advertise/argue in a page for any other, but put them under "See also" if they have a logical relation to each other.
- So, can you please re-add them? Just without any evaluation. Which tag is better can be discussed anyway, later – maybe actually on the mailing list though. --rugk (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the 'see also' should have link to other pages - similar or complimentary or competing. I have no problem with the reinstatement of the crop link on the produce page provided similar occurs on the crop page. Discussion should be best placed on the tagging mailing list where there should be more people concerned with tags. However to alert people to thoughts these discussion pages serve those not on the mailing lists. To me the word 'produce' applies to more things than the word 'crop' e.g. beef is not a crop ..yet it is a produce. It would be better to use the more universal word so that mappers and data consumers have a common key that can be used for all things produced though a natural process of growing or breeding rather than have to have 2 keys - one for growing the other for breading. I did add the comment that produce appears to be a better key, if that is offensive remove the comment. Warin61 (talk) 00:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
@Warin61 Please just restore all the links you need. But what's the benefit of having a common key for different things?
The sentence "so that mappers and data consumers have a common key" is IMHO a total misunderstands of OSM, which you probably know better. Data consumers have to use the keys used by the mappers. Anything else just doesn't work.--Ryzen (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2018 (UTC)