An older proposal (v1) to reduce this tag (initially, in the USA)
I'd like to initiate discussion (and a concomitant "call for volunteers") to reduce the usage of park:type=* in the USA. Two "initially seem easy" approaches are presented. The first approach is to find park:type=city_park and see if there is a leisure=park tag (there very likely is, one should be added if not). If the entity is a leisure=park, park:type=city_park should be removed, as it is superfluous. Tags owner=* and/or operator=* can clarify with values of "City of ...". The second approach is something similar on USA federal-level (Department of Interior, National Park Service) boundary=national_parks: see if they have a park:type=* tag, likely with value of national_park, and if all other tags seem correct and harmonious (again, owner=* and/or operator=* tags are helpful), remove the park:type=* tag as superfluous. That's low hanging fruit, realatively easy tasks to both agree upon and perform on our data. What this does by leaving the remainder of entities tagged park:type=* begins to allow us to categorize them for similar passes at reducing this tag. We can use taginfo and Overpass Turbo queries to isolate these, one park:type=* value at a time, individually / manually examine their other tags (besides park:type=*) and see if they can be better tagged. If, with consensus, we agree they are "better tagged," the park:type=* tag should then be removed. But these "third and beyond" passes will need more community interactivity to achieve consensus. No bots / automated edits here, this should be done slowly, carefully, manually and with required community interaction. Comments, please? Stevea (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@Stevea, your way over using internal linking. It makes the article much harder to read. Especially in short paragraphs and to none existent links. Generally, it's not necessary to use internally linking on the same thing more then once. Wikipedia actually advises against it. Especially for lead sections "Too many links can make the lead hard to read." Also, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead. Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article." I'm working on a table to supplement the written article when we are done writing it. Until then, it would be good if the internal links were cut down a lot and only once or twice for each link. Especially dead ones. For instance in the lead section for "Current usage" you have "park:type=*" linked four times. It's completely unnecessarily and distracting. Especially since it's the actual park:type article we are on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Instances where leisure=park can be removed
(Copied from article as the talk page is the appropriate place for it) Adamant1 writes "Unless it clearly appropriate to remove it" and stevea asks for recognition that asserting the obviousness of something like this is ineffective, autocratic and rewrites rules with little or no discussion, simply asserting rather than actually clarifying. "Clearly appropriate" is not something that is easily asserted by any one contributor, as OSM has a decade or more of legacy tagging that needs improvement. - SteveA --Adamant1 (talk) 23:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm wrong, but last time I checked possibly replacing leisure=park with leisure=nature_reserve would negate the use of the leisure=park tag in those situations. The reason I added the disclaimer was so it would be clear people shouldn't do it indiscriminately. I'm not sure what's "autocratic" about that. If anything it's to the benefit of leisure=park tag to not suggest it be removed hardy gardy. Id appreciate it if you refrain from needless insults, especially in the actual articles where personal attacks and discussions about specific details really shouldn't happen, and assume good faith. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Me assuming good faith with you isn't something you should mention, Adam. I do state that leisure=park and leisure=nature_reserve, by virtue of having the same key, force a "best choice" of value when the leisure=* key is used. I am not familiar with what is meant by "hardy gardy." We (OSM, you, me, others...) are doing something difficult here, categorizing natural language of a widely "smeared" word like park into the crisp syntax of tags in a mapping database. There will be disagreements, there will be back and forth of "yes it is, no it's not..." and this is where listening skills are important, not the assertion of "obviousness." These things are not always obvious and getting to agreement is done gently, not with force. Stevea (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- How is me saying you should assume good faith when you accuse me of being autocratic and just asserting something not something that should be mentioned? That's the opposite of assuming good faith. I've gone out of my way to discuss these things, like starting the topic of internal linking instead of just removing it. I've also gone out of my way to make sure I left your writing on in the article intact as intact as possible. Whereas, I see no discussion topics here on your side about most of what you've written in the article before you put it there. Plus, you've done nothing but mass edited/deleted what I write in the article in the meantime and reverted my edits. There also isn't "strong consensus" anywhere that state parks should be tagged as national parks and there's actually strong Opposition to it. For instance here and the mailing list discussion. There's also zero evidence the actual tagging is due to "states being sovereign", but your perfectly fine asserting both those things. So..Who's the one actually doing the things your accusing me off? Finally, I'll go out of my way to say whatever your opinion of my behavior is, the rule is to not make things personal and to stay on topic. So its 100% better if you just don't do it and start on topic discussions so the actual details can be worked out instead, like I'm doing. Personal comments definitely shouldn't go in articles. None of that is "getting to agreement gently" on your part. It's pretty simple. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- So,since we both agree that things should be discussed before being added to the article and also agree that nothing should be put in it "autocratically", that means everything you wrote in it related to the park:type tag or otherwise, that doesn't specifically have a discussion topic here should be removed. I'm sure we can both agree we should follow our own standards right? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I distinctly tire of this argumentiveness; it seems everywhere in everything you write. Wiki writing is wiki writing. Find an editor you like (there is more than one) and use it. There IS strong consensus that state parks are tagged national_park: please see this link to the Oregon Overpass Turbo query and note that in one state out of fifty there is many such taggings. Tagging realities (actual data now in our map) ARE a kind of consensus. Sure, we can grow and change those data to something a wide consensus emerges to change TO, however, that wide consensus has yet to emerge. You and I discuss (and discuss and discuss) this, and there is this Talk page, the noted WikiProject page, Talk in leisure=park, discussion (largely during April, 2019) on talk-us and it almost feels endless. There is no shortage of places to say things. Yet there only appear to be you and I (others watch) creating Discussion spaces. Offer something upon which might nudge the ball forward towards consensus (add a row to the table, already existing, on the Page, for example) and we might get others chiming in their contributions, too. But when it is only the two of us endlessly reaching what seem to be dead ends and tail-chasing, I see little point in continuing. Offer something firm upon which we might sink our teeth of chewy consideration, and the community will consider it. We right now consider four or five entries in the table, that's a start. Keep going, please. Stevea (talk) 00:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's not being argumentative to say we should apply the standards to ourselves that we set for others. If you think things shouldn't be in the article that aren't discussed fine. Remove your edits until their discussed or don't use it as a talking point or a reason to revert people. It's pretty simple. Your being argumentative by reverting people and personally attacking them on article pages with insults. Look at your own behavior. I was fine editing the article along with you with no discussion until you did that. I'm tired of you constantly calling out none existent bad behavior as a reason to not be civil or to not discuss things. As I've said many times, I could do without the discussion and I rather not have it in the first place. It only happens when I'm forced into it by your actions. Like the comments about me in the article. I agree with about reaching a dead end. The issue is that I have every right to edit a page without being reverted for none reasons or called out. The dead ends aren't, and shouldn't be an excuse to circumvent my right to edit the park:type page or forgo discussion on new topics related to it when needed. Because we disagree about some things, doesn't mean we disagree about everything or that we cant come to agreement through discussion on certain pertinent things related to your actions towards my edits.
- As far as the national park thing goes, refer to my comment on the park discussion page. I don't care if you want to say its speculated that "state sovereignty" is a reason for the tagging. As long as its 1. its supported with evidence 2. Other theories are presented. I also don't have a problem with you saying some state parks are tagged as national parks. As that's a fact. I have an issue with you treating it like it's wide spread and "standard" practice when it's not. As you say its sensitive topic and there are various tagging practices for various reasons. So treat it that way in article. Instead of making it seem due to one factor or a closed case when its not. Especially when that one factor has zero evidence while other factors do. Not to mention that "state sovereignty" has anything to do with the intent of the tag or not. There's nothing on national park article that mentions it's suppose to be used on anything "sovereign." That's it.
- Btw, it's extremely ironic that on the one hand you reverted me for adding a two word paragraph because supposedly it wasn't discussed but then it comes to your edits of the article, which 99% of them, and how they haven't been talked about your suddenly sick of all the conversation. Then you wonder why other people besides us aren't participating in this. There's really no point for anyone to participate and this isn't going to get anywhere with that kind of thing or deleting/reverting things in the article you don't like that other people add and not implementing their suggestions (I.E. over use of internal links). Plus, it will just lead to animosity and edit warring. Which isn't good. Just some advice. Your the one that said you were "neutral" and don't ultimately care what's used etc. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- A note on Adamant1's notorious habit of not using minor edits for truly minor edits or minor spelling/grammar corrections, but to somewhat "rewrite history:" by checking the history on today's date, you can see he added to this thread "Remove your edits until their (sic) discussed or don't use it (sic) as a talking point or a reason to revert people. It's pretty simple." as well as "Not to mention that "state sovereignty" has anything to do with the intent of the tag or not. There's nothing on national park article that mentions it's suppose to be used on anything "sovereign." To clarify, sovereignty (the dual sovereignty extant in the United States of America) was never claimed to "have anything to do with the intent of the tag," it was merely offered as a partial explanation for why dozens or hundreds of OSM contributors (according to their knowledge of actual US civics, law and history) actually did and do tag state parks with the boundary=national_park tag. Though (and this has been mentioned many times, but it is worth mentioning again here and now), another important reason we might speculate many contributors tagged thusly is because the boundary=national_park tag actually renders, whereas tagging a state park without this tag likely does not render. The idea of sovereignty in this context is that it gives rise to a level of government (whether federal or state) having every right to declare what is a park a park. And by the way, regarding Adamant1's June 18 comment that "we both agree that things should be discussed before being added to the article" I strenuously object to this characterization: I (stevea) never agreed to any such thing, as to do so is pure folly. Wiki writing has always involved an author asserting that something is not only true, but factually relevant enough that it be shared with the greater community, in the spirit of documentation, or in some cases, (like tables that show red-yellow-green) a sort of "status report" on progress achieved regarding the relevant mapping in the table or section. THAT is (at least partially) what makes good wiki writing. I'll offer this advice to Adamant1 for the first time (though it feels long overdue and it is likely not the last time I do): Be more of an author (of good map data, of good wiki) and less of a critic. Of course, if and when a (usually minor) error is found in written wiki, it should be corrected, but this happens relatively infrequently (as most wiki authors are careful to "get it right") or it is to properly update outdated information. Such "constructive criticism" is quite welcome, not only by me, but by everybody. The "rock throwing" sort (and unsolicited advice — imo, worth what I pay for it: nothing) which has a basic flavor of "you are completely wrong..." is quite unwelcome. Yet Adamant1 can't seem to write anything here (in wiki, in Talk pages) without harsh criticsm, little if anything that is constructive, and often, a highly insulting and inflammatory tone. I do not have this experience with any of the HUNDREDS of other OSM contributors I have encountered in my decade of mapping and wiki-writing here, only Adamant1. There must be something to that. Stevea (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, "There is strong consensus that state parks in all fifty US states (states being sovereign)" isn't "merely a partial explanation." It's an assertion that states being sovereign is the reason state parks are being that way. Otherwise, it would say something like "One possible reason state parks are tagged as national parks is because of their sovereignty." While also listing other possible options. As I've mentioned several other times on the park talk page. If Steve, for whatever reason, rather spend 19 lines going off on a diatribe instead of adding a few clarifying words to the article that's on him. Suggesting an improvement to an article as I did by saying so isn't a harsh criticism. Nor is it me saying the state sovereignty thing is "completely wrong." All I did was make a suggestion on how to improve the paragraph a little. That's it. Otherwise, I would have said to remove it. Which I didn't and I never claimed adding a few words to it was anything other then a suggestion. I never claimed all my suggestions where pure gold either or that they had to be implemented. The problem is, in Steve's world everything is insulting and inflammatory, constructive or otherwise. There's no room with him to suggest anything, because he sees any kind of feedback as a personal attack on him. For whatever reason, he stand the idea that something he's written or worked on might need improvement. So, he flips out, calls foul, and personally attacks the other person when they haven't done anything. As I haven't here or anywhere else that he has acted the same way. As far as is claim that he hasn't offered the advice of mapping better data or writing better on the wiki. He's said it repeatedly, in almost every conversation we have had. The "bad" writing or mapping is always on someone else. While in the same paragraph he claims saying things are "wrong" is inflammatory. Also he says to be less of critic, but he's the only true critic here. Through deciding what's "good" and "bad" editing, then deleting and reverting everything that doesn't fit his critical standards. He does the same thing everywhere. Complain about the quality of everyone else's work, tell them to stop with the conversation on write things, then revert whatever they do while leaving critical changeset comments and messages about it. Or he just outright deletes it repeatedly. As if it's his way or the highway. So who's the one really saying and acting like things are "completely wrong" here? Nothing he says is genuine. Let alone anything he actually practices himself. It's 100% a deflection, fake standards, and virtue signaling to an imagery audience he's constantly trying to look good to while attempt to destroy other people's reputations. Just like him claiming I archived the discussion posts to hide my words. While he routinely deletes insulting things he says from discussion posts after the fact. Btw Steve, sometimes things are "completely wrong" if your to completely unwilling to notice your own mistakes or except feedback about things constructive or otherwise that's on you. There's been plenty of comments on changesets and other places by other users besides me saying you have an attitude. The fact that most things you work on here don't have any discussion though including this discussion page even after you posted about it mailing list speaks for itself. As do your personal, disingenuous, deflective responses here and other places. Along with your bad faith actions everywhere, of which there are many. Not just with me. Anyway, I'm done with this conversation as much as I am the other one's. So, I'm done with you. Good luck, Steve. Bye, bye. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
What an utter waste of everybody's time: now Adamant1 proposes to rewrite what I SHOULD have written, as if he can read my own mind. Adam, it only takes one person for me to assert that "states being sovereign is A (not THE) reason." OK, let's say that person is me. Ipso facto, because I know about dual-sovereignty in the USA (and I'm sure millions, if not hundreds of millions or even billions of other people do, too), I can say "the reason that _I_ asserted a particular state park be tagged national_park is because of state sovereignty." There, that's enough. (Oh, and because this is found HUNDREDS of times across many states and our country, I'm not the only one!) Adam, you can edit wiki text, too: it's done all the time. When it is a "good edit" (as I'd guess 99% or so are, and the greater community knows what's good and what's not), it stays in the wiki, with no contention. A "good edit" is seen as an improvement, correction, update or "bettering" of the previous text. The entire community supports such edits. So, better than endlessly complaining about things, add your own "few clarifying words." Honestly, I don't know why you have glommed onto this except as an example of how you seem to enjoy nitpicking molehills you attempt to make into mountains, when they are not. And NO: it is FALSE of you to say that "everything is insulting and inflammatory." FALSE. There are hundreds-of-thousands (millions?) of words I have written which are not, they are constructive, they are conciliatory, they are collaborative. What you engage in here is called hyperbole and exaggeration, and everybody sees it when you do it. It is FALSE to say "any kind of feedback (is) a personal attack". Baloney. More hyperbole. I do not "flip out," that is simply exaggeration, perhaps something you wish or imagine to be true (it isn't), or maybe it is a deliberate untruth, I'm not sure. But it certainly isn't true: that is said by the person who you accuse, and I'm guessing (with some certainty and even some feedback) that is obvious to all who read our words. "He does the same thing everywhere" is more of the same: false accusation, plain and simple. "Bad faith actions everywhere," Adam? That sounds like slander to me. "Imagery audience?" Huh? I invite Adam to go bother some other person, people, wiki, topic, map, state, or heck, while I'm at it, project. For somebody who keeps saying "I'm done" repeatedly, he sure seems to be unable to not be the one to get the last word in. Stevea (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Here is a not-brief-at-all summary of what Adam has been up to for the last several days here in this wiki, so our community might see Adam for how he truly acts. These are all verifiable with the usual methods: I'm not making anything up, exaggerating or saying anything untrue, untoward or insulting. I am merely reiterating what happened. Any opinion that might be gleaned from the following text is my own.
An active wiki proposal to modify a decade-entrenched tag (with of thousands of examples), especially with an active wiki and an active Talk/Discussion in that wiki, STRONGLY implies "don't delete these tags (now), instead, continue Discussion in Page (including the table of proposed changes) or Talk." Adamant1 and I did engage in some brief discussion / collaboration here by better populating an early table of "old park:type values" and "proposed better tags to potentially replace these with," so I (very briefly) believed he was engaging in good faith dialog in the wiki. He was not. We didn't finish (by far), we didn't agree to begin the process which was politely though lightly sketched in the Discussion page (first section, what I now call "v1" of the proposal) as an early "let's talk about this further," and "let's discuss whether we'll pick low-hanging fruits #1 and #2." Recall, we had already begun conversing via table entries in the wiki. No, the "Comments, please?" I asked for in Talk immediately next devolved by Adamant1 into a criticism of wiki-writing syntax, for which I thanked him and we moved on. Then in the wiki, Adamant1 made a nonsensical contradiction to a previous phrase, confusing into senselessness the clarity we seek: insisting upon what is "clear" and "obvious" does not clarify, nor is one person's obviousness always obvious to another. These tactics either are or seem to be deliberately muddying, or are at least evidence of poor writing / communication skills / wiki-decorum. This is all determinable by relatively basic forensic analysis of Adamant1's posts, signatures and timestamps. And yes, there is such a thing as poor writing, whether in wiki or commenting on it in Talk/Discussion pages. This medium (wiki) uses the written word and we must abide by its limitations by being as clear as possible, I know this and heed its often only blunt effects. The usual social lubricants of politeness, decorum, et cetera also apply to such writings, perhaps more sharply than usual because of the interactivity and relatively quick turnaround afforded by being as networked as it is.
In the next Talk thread (right before attempting to delete / bury his own bad acts in his dialog into an Archive) Adamant1 admitted to making a mistake, confusing owner vs. ownership. While there is little shame in owning a mistake, as Adamant1 was doing so, he criticized (while he neither understood basic premises about, nor offered any constructive improvement toward) the park_level concept / talking point as it "overcomplicates" (in his mind). He did so via ungrammatical, difficult-to-parse sentence fragments to declare that "more discussion and explanation would convolute things needlessly." (Such discussion is precisely what AVOIDS convolution). Adamant1 then imagined he could conjure out of nothingness the hard work of others by saying "it would be good if...", he next becomes insulted when others challenge him to "please go do those things" and threatens me with ultimatums as I suggest / challenge HIM to do what he exhorts others to complete.
Any "gotchas" Adamant1 finds himself caught in are his own. Adamant1 seems only able to be inflammatory, insulting, non-conciliatory, overtly critical, slanderous, baiting, rewriting or burying his own history, projecting his bad acts on others, overwhelmingly negative, telling untruths about what just happened or simply writing into false existence untruths about others, engaging in hyperbole or ad hominem attacks, repeatedly violating a direct request by me to stop contact via his private missives (he can and does say whatever he wants in these, then twists them horrifically, this is simply vicious abuse and slander — oh, and in a jurisdiction we share) or even all of the above simultaneously or in quick succession. And that is not even an exhaustive list of his bad acts, all of which took place in the single wiki of park:type over barely three days! For example, right below this he claims I was "repeatedly complaining about being sick of discussion" when I simply said I did not wish to continue what is a dead-end thread. (Not "repeatedly" and not "sick of discussion"). A "bunch of discussion that doesn't lead to action or testing these things doesn't do any good" is another mistaken assertion by Adamant1: he seems unable to engage in civil discussion, so of course he skips ahead to action or testing, "damn the discussion, Adamant1 action ahead!" These are simply untruths, there is no other word (besides "lie" or "liar" which imply bad intent, something I believe but am not 100% sure about now). It may be that Adamant1 isn't fully aware of his actions and some of their consequences, though I sincerely doubt that. Anything asserting otherwise (e.g. that he isn't deliberate, or his insults or bad acts are accidental somehow) would need to be proven to me with legal evidence meeting standards, such as preponderance (for slander and other torts) or beyond a shadow of doubt (for criminal electronic harassment). Yes, I have but to ask for legal due process for these incidents (I haven't, yet).
There is no such verb as "stalk" in an Open project like OSM; Open is our first name and "stalk" is simply slanderous exaggeration: res ipsa loquitu (facts speak for themselves). There is, however, criminal harassment and slander in the real world, and sadly, people can use OSM to promulgate such acts. Adamant1 says one moment that he is "done arguing" (multiple times), then starts back up an argument (multiple times) the next moment. And yes, a tag IS established when it has thousands of examples over a decade of usage (and we precisely attempt to remedy in the very wiki Adamant1 himself started!), so Adamant1 is mistaken that it is not. Adamant1 is also mistaken when he says "my edits are my business" as this is OPENStreetMap, not Adamant1StreetMap. I'd much rather speak directly to the perpetrator of bad acts (and encourage him to cease once informed of his erroneous ways) than to bother an admin, as Adamant1 repeatedly does. Adamant1 trots out inflammatory phrases like "air your dirty laundry," "character assassination" and "continue drama" when there are no such things going on (except in inflammatory fashion by Adamant1 himself). I strive here to simply display to a wider community Adamant1's behavior as Adamant1's behavior, so everyone may see it for themselves. Honestly, I want nothing to do with Adamant1, except that his behavior be seen for what it is as he continues again and again to repeat it: bad acts toward me and several other Contributors to this worthy project. Why must I absorb attempts to repeatedly sully and bully me (with limited remedy by our busy-with-other-tasks wiki administrators or DWG), when I do nothing wrong and simply identify repeated bad acts of this perpetrator? I don't "make things personal" here, I am a witness to Adamant1's activity.
I offer for the second time a single suggestion to Adamant1: "Be more of an author (of good map data, of good wiki) and less of a critic." Yes, this is polite-speak, but I also offer him a warning, as I hereby demand that he stop slandering me (as others in this project have been both slandered by Adamant1, called him out for it and demanded he stop): cease and desist saying false, hyperbolic statements about me and my actions which are rather easily provably false here (and in a court of competent jurisdiction, too). If Adamant1 cannot or does not cease his bad acts and torts, I'm sure he can find OSM's exit, or others in our project will show him to it. The lesson here is how ineffective such tactics (bad acts) turn out to be. This is obvious behavior and it is beyond the pale. Nobody gets anywhere tossing constant chaos.
Please, Adam: cease being an agent of chaos in OSM, seemingly endlessly, seemingly constantly. You deeply harm our project as you do so, and everybody is plenty tired of it. Stevea (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
- Steve, you either must have failed to read the apology letter I sent a few days ago or you are purposing choosing to ignore it's existence. Because in it I clearly apologized for my side of the arguing and said I would be stepping away from discussions for a while because I was distraught over serious family issues. The next day though you continued to attack me in discussions and changeset comments as if it never happened. I will leave will the character judgments out if this. Except to say it was seriously lacking in any kind of empathy and directly contradicts your whole thing about how you just want contact to end, because you didn't stop the contact when there was clear multiple opportunities for you to do so. You did the same thing when I said I wanted to be left alone and then you contacted me multiple times on my changesets, about the national park thing, and also continued attacking me after an admin told us to have a cooling off period. You can't have it both ways, where you cry foul about me contacting you when I am just responding to your continued attacks. While you repeatedly comment on my changeset etc against the wishes me, the admins, and literally everyone else. You've always started back up the arguments. Not me. I never commented on your changesets or anywhere else about things after we both said we didn't want to continue things. You did.
As far as if your actions constitute stalking, I'm not going to split hairs over semantics. I will say you have been perfectly fine calling me a stalker in the past for much lesser things then you have done to me. Your clearly the only one tossing constant chaos here. Since you refuse to just let things be and refusing to not make things personal every time. End this now by not making the kind of comments about me you did above. Don't comment on my changeset's any more either. Don't respond with more threats, personal attacks, or long screeds. Better yet, just don't respond at all. Here or anywhere else to anything having to do with me. Otherwise, I will defend myself against your bullying. The only actions I've taken in this discussion and others is to quote your own words and actions. Nothing about that, legally or otherwise, is slanderous. That's all I have done here, else where, and will continue to do as long as you keep up the personal tirades like the one above. Whereas, you've said and done much worse. If you actually, truly, want the discussions to end, just stop then just stop the tirades. It's that simple. I've asked you to stop them multiple times and I said id be perfectly happy going away if you do. The admins and other users have to. So actually back up your words with actions this time by not continuing things here or anywhere else. Actually get it this time and don't contact me anymore about anything. Don't post harassing comments about me here or otherwise and don't mess with edits either anymore, period. Actually leave me alone. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Owner versus ownership versus park_level
Originally I meant ownership, not owner. I think that's what should be used to replace the corresponding park:type tags. For instance park:type county park should be replaced with ownership=county etc (that doesn't mean something like owner=Santa_Cruz_County couldn't be used also with it though for the exact name of who owns it). As a side to that, I think the six number admin_level thing over complicates it that this point. Plus it's supposed to used to show political hierarchy. Not ownership per say. So it seems like the wrong usage in this case. It would also be good if there was a proposal page for the park_level idea that explicitly states how it would be better then similar tags like ownership=county and explains it in proper detail. Discussing and explaining it here more would convolute things needlessly in my opinion, like talking about national parks on the regular park article, and it should have a proposal so it can go through RFC and a vote eventually anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion. Thank you for your corrections to your error. You started this page (park:type=*), how about you go start park_level=* if you are so passionate? You say "it would also be good if..." well, I invite you to please go do so. Don't forget to include park_level=*'s original intent (its roots are from 2009): to potentially facilitate rendering (similar to how admin_level=* does so with differently-dashed purple lines), something which cannot be done with ownership=* tags. And you are mistaken re "it's supposed to used to show political hierarchy" (which is an ungrammatical sentence I have trouble parsing): it IS supposed to show political hierarchy, that is its exact point. Regarding "should be," well, please go do so. Regarding "seems like the wrong usage," well, seeing it's only a concept / talking point, please better articulate what is the RIGHT usage. (This is called "constructive criticism" rather than what I have characterized as the consistently whiny tone I get from Adamant1 of "this is poopy" and "that is poopy.") Regarding "should have a proposal so it can go through RFC and a vote eventually," well, I'll ask Adamant1 to recognize how much effort is involved in doing things like that, take a well-deserved break from similar sort of work I've done in this project and ask Adamant1 himself to step right up. Anybody can criticize: it's easy and it's even lazy when it doesn't include being constructive. Mappers map and wiki writers write. I invite Adamant1 to bark up another tree, I distinctly tire of months and months of Adamant1's constant negativity. Stevea (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- I might have started the page, but I'm not the one that put the suggestion of using park_level on it or added most of the other content. It's not on me to create pages for, elaborate on, or justify why other peoples ideas are good ones. That's on them. You suggested it and know the history of it. So it's on you to add the details. Don't forget that tags shouldn't be created just for the rendering benefits either. There needs to be a better justification then that for using a tag. So, justify it and explain it or remove the reference to it from the page. There's zero reason the ownership can't be used for the same thing anyway. In what's a much better, way more sense way IMHO. As you say, park_level is suppose to show politically hierarchy and other tags already do that way better. For parks or otherwise. Look at how parks etc are tagged in Europe. There's already perfectly good tags used for that there. Creating a new one is just pointless and redundant. Otherwise, create a proposal and state why it's better. Also, not once have I used the word "poopy" or any other insult to describe anything on this talk page or article. I'm also not judging you on past arguments and have done nothing but given you the benefit of the doubt repeatedly. When you haven't given me any are perfectly fine calling me lazy, autocratic, etc. So, so who's the one being constantly negative here? You clearly can't handle the slightest feedback, constructive or otherwise, about anything, without throwing a fit. Let alone not control everything your involved in. This is a group project and your opinions aren't the only ones that matter. Just accept the feedback, move on, and stop turning everything into an opportunity complain about people and their behavior. It's massively irritating and I'm sick of it. I've bent over backwards repeatedly here and other places to indulge your attitude and do things your way, when I had zero reason to considering how you treated me before. You've talked down to me and acted like you were better then everyone else in literally every conversation I've had with you. Be an adult, stop holding grudges, and just move on. I have. Also, stop with the superiority complex and acting your so above everything or that any slight bit of feedback is a massive annoyance. Your the one that repeatedly went off about the need for consensus and discussion. So you have zero room to insult me for discussing things or to whine about it. Either be civil and get things done others collaboratively, including me, like I've been trying to do or there will just be more issues and this won't ever get dealt with. At least not by you or I, and that would be a shame for both of us. Your 100% making up fake controversies to try and get me in a "gotcha" moment. So I'll get banned and you'll get your way and your opinions will be the only ones one here, because you stand that people disagree with about things. You keep doing that. Not only is it extremely dishonest, its also the same thing that got us both banned before. Think about it. It didn't work back then and it's not going to work now. I can 100% guarantee if you keep it up will probably both be banned. You'd think you would at stop with it for the sake of self preservation. Know one really cares if I ask questions on a discussion forum. They do care if you repeatedly do this disingenuous repeated slandering though. So think about it the next time you get an urge an to write a message like the one above. You know they will ban both of us without warring if it comes down to it. Your free to have your opinions and you can dislike me all you want. Just keep them to yourself. For your own good. That's all I have to say about it. From now on, everything I'm writing will be on topic and relevant to the article. I expect you to do the same. I already asked you multiple times not to insult me or make things personal. This time, actually listen or you might not get another chance. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, ultimatums from the snarky one. I sincerely doubt that ANYbody, OSM-WIDE! can say that there is a "justification" for admin_level=* EXCEPT that it facilitates rendering. What silliness that "tags shouldn't be created just for the rendering benefits either." Says who? This might be the most foolish thing I've ever heard in OSM. Saying "it's on you" (because park:type was my idea) is another ridiculous non-starter: if we all followed that logic, OSM would be made up of a few (smarter-than-average) people who have good ideas and know how to code, map and write wiki... and "that's it:" because, according to Adamant1, "there needs to be a better justification" (for us to coin new tags, or make contributions that other people invent, then have additional people build upon). Have you volunteered to be in an OPEN data project? Have you volunteered to be in a project of MILLIONS of people who CROWDSOURCE together, all strengthening each other because we build upon each other's good ideas, contributions, strengths and complement each other's skills, time and abilities well? Wow! And where do you get off saying "So, justify it and explain it or remove it?" That's pretty pushy-shovy of you, Buster: how rude! That seems a brain-dead way of not understanding that "zero reason" isn't true that "ownership can't be used for the same thing anyway." Pah! Try this: you've got sixty or seventy languages of THOUSANDS of tags like "county_park," "parque_municipale," "городской парк" and "حديقة المدينة" to tag. Are you really going to build a table of THOUSANDS of entries into your park-dashed-line-boundary parser renderer? Of course not! You are going to coin a tag like park_level, like I fashioned ten years ago, and like OSM did for admin_level=*, with eight or ten or a dozen values and ask the world to shoehorn their tags into a numerical hierarchy, because that is the logical / mathematical / computer science-y correct method. But while the latter tag is important (national boundaries, state boundaries...) park tags aren't quite that important, so I've held off and waited a decade so I might see what develops. Part of the answer is: "some guy who goes by Adamant1!" But that's OK, I can easily dismiss your CONSTANT negativity with "hm, that guy doesn't even 'get it' enough to understand the folly of what he doesn't even understand as he criticizes it (with no constructive, positive suggestions to accompany)." Such tagging is anything but "pointless and redundant." Because you WON'T answer my question above ("are you really going to build...?"), I don't need to continue along this tack. Nothing I said in "the above message" slanders you, rather, it CHALLENGES you! You don't need to use the word "poopy," that's my word to describe your attitude about virtually everything you write about, how you characterize virtually everything you say to people in Talk pages and wiki: "you are wrong," "this is crap," "how poopy your ideas are," et cetera. Please, if you DARE, show me, oh, say three or four POSITIVE, CONSTRUCTIVE wiki/Talk posts you have made, and the concomitant "move the project forward" results you acheived because of them. I doubt you can! The vast majority of what you do is whine and wheedle from generous (gullible?) people (like me) who have buckets of patience to offer beginner mappers like you: we feel sorry for your vast misunderstanding and deep confusion and try to school you gently and with kindness and patience with the tenets and good graces of an august and awesome project like OSM and what do we get in return? Your undying insults, total lack of gratitude and enough attitude to upset an entire worldwide project! You know what? I see this for what it is: trolling and an utter waste of time (that would be Adamant1 and anything to do with thim). I've had it! I AM an adult, it is Adamant1 who doesn't act like one. He has NOT bent over backwards, he has kicked sand in our eyes (MANY of us), he has insulted us with his potty mouth, he falsely accuses others (of "holding grudges," "can't take feedback," "act like an adult"...this goes on and on) when these are the things that HE does! It is called "projection," and it is a sad and obvious thing to see. I collaborate with DOZENS, perhaps HUNDREDS of other OSM contributors. EFFECTIVELY! With 100% of them! I don't say that to boast, I say it because I have ground to stand on and I don't believe you do. I hold my head high in this project, Adamant1. You, well, we'll let the community decide your actions (and possibly fate) here. Saying you are civil (when you are not) and acting civil are TWO DIFFERENT things. I let the community judge how much you ARE (civil) and how much you SAY you are (civil). Stevea (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Stick to the subject. I'm not talking about some imagery senero of how people might do it in other instances. I'm specifically talking about the park tag. Your going off on me about how I should write a proposal for a tag I know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about and treating me like I'm a dirt bag for asking you to do it because YOU know about the subject. Think about it. I can't write about something I know zero about. Whereas, you can because you know the history etc. Why get defensive about that? My bad for thinking this was a wiki where its better to have more details about things and that's its better for people who actually know the subject to write about them. If you weren't so busy throwing a childish tantrum over it by throwing something in my face that I said in a note 2 years ago, which wasn't even "poopy", you could have just said you rather not write the proposal and pointed me to information about the tag if nothing else. I might have been perfectly willing to write it if you didn't want to. I'm good now though. You probably would have just revert everything I put in it and thrown a bunch of fits there anyway, like your doing here. I asked you several times to assume good faith and all you've done is take pot shots at me in almost every message you've written and even in the article when it was completely un-warrented. complaining about things that aren't even issues is all you seem to do. It's pretty obvious you do it because you rather deflect by putting everything on other people instead of owning up to your own issues and problems. I have worked on crowed sourced protect with millions of people. More then one of them and I actually work with people. I can give plenty of examples. All I on your side is a bunch of your the only editor for years on with zero discussion between you or anyone else there and a bunch of messages by a bunch of people chiding you for your attitude and disagreeing with you everywhere that there is any conversation your involved in. Feel free to search my Github profile, all of the PR's I've done there, ideas I've had implemented related to OSM or other projects, all the thumbs up I get for my ideas. I also have hundreds of edits on Wikipedia and other sites. My accomplished in the crowd sourced world don't need to be validated by you or anyone else and I don't need you lecturing me on how people should behave on them. Your behavior here is the issue. Not mine. Anyway, I said ownership can be used for the same thing. Maybe my spell checker screwed it up and made it "can't. I don't know, but that wasn't what I said or meant. I meant that ownership can be used for the same thing as park_level only better. If you think differently, instead of attacking me just state why. Write it in an article or something. Don't insult me here though for not knowing the benefits of something that you haven't explained the benefits to. Know one is just going to magically know why park_level is a better tagging scheme that's why I suggested you should create an article about it. I guess you prefer to just insult people over something they have zero way of knowing instead though. "I'm not going to create an article or explain it, and in the mean time I'm going to insult you for not knowing anything about it" really isn't a good strategy and it's an extremely dishonest way to deal with things. Asking you to create an article explaining it or do it better here so people can know what the tag is about is exactly accompanying what I said with a positive suggestion. There's absolutely zero that's negativity about that. So I have no clue what your talking about. As far as what I'm going to build instead of the park level tag, I don't have to build anything. The ownership tag already has all the same things park_level would. So it would be the one building things. Ownership is actually being used and exists, park_level doesn't and isn't. You accuse me of talking none sense. If you think my "tone" is "poopy" because I asked you to elaborate on something you came up, that's your problem for reading to much into people's behavior. That's where the whole "assume good faith" that you seem incapable of doing comes in. If your spending every message reading into tone, your focusing on the wrong things. I could care less what anyone's tone here is. That's PC nonsense and nothing gets dealt with by focusing on it. This is a perfect example. I'll ignore the insults about how all I do is whine, weedle, and am confused all the time. Except to say, my record of working with other people speaks for it's self and your lack of one does also. How you act around others doesn't matter anyway. Only how appallingly you've acted here and toward me about this. Know one in the community is going to cut you special breaks because you've worked with them on things before. Which I doubt you have anyway because there's zero evidence of it. Everything that disagrees with you or anyone that points out where you can improve things is trolling or a waste of your time. It's pretty obvious by now that its your MO. Along being the one kicking sand in peoples eyes while running off to the adults and blaming it all on them. The only reason your head is held high is because of elitist, better then everyone else, attitude that you keep forward. Let the community judge though. We both will be judged just like before, and not kindly. I forewarned you, both times. Neither time did you listen. I moved on and was willing to get along for the project and so we could both participate in it. Its to bad you didn't. Ultimately, I just feel sorry for you and the island you've created for yourself with your attitude. That's all I have to say about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sticking to the point, "here's why," and I repeat myself. You have THOUSANDS of tags regarding parks in dozens of languages, and something like park:level conflates these (as does admin_level=*) into ten or twelve (numerical) values. I simply tire of explaining things to someone as antagonistic as you. Go chase your own tail. Go bark up some other tree. Bye! Stevea (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Cool for park_level. Ownership doesn't though. Your the one that suggested park_level. So if it doesn't work because of conflation, remove it as a suggestion then. I'm not sure what I have to do with that. I didn't suggest it or put it on the page. So it's my fault and I'm antagonistic because you suggested a bad tag that doesn't work? Right. Tags aren't created because of how they will or won't work in other languages besides English anyway. Like me and others have said, we favor British English here. It's not really relevant how a tag works or doesn't in Farsi. Especially since this is mainly a United States issue. Anyway,I'm off to edit the article to reflect how much park_level doesn't work as a tag and is useless. Along with putting other perspectives about the national park thing and implementing other things your unwilling to discuss. P.S. I figured you'd ignore the rest of my message, because you know it's true and don't have a good defense for any of it. Good job proving I'm right. Enjoy your one man island of denial. Bye, bye. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
(It's like he doesn't even read, and look how often he parrots back exactly what I say). Observe the massive misunderstanding and mischaracterization, please, OSM community. This is what Adamant1 does. Meanwhile, I'm off to WikiProject_United_States_Public_Lands, which actually either already does or has the potential to make a difference in virtually everything about parks he has complained about to me. (Pivot, or don't). Map. Map well. Stevea (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
- Cool, another article that your mostly the only editor of and that has almost zero discussion. Where you make all the decisions etc. Awesome. Good luck with that. I don't really care. I'm not going to be involved in it. That's for sure. Btw, for someone that keeps going off about how you don't want to discuss things etc etc etc, you sure do leave a lot of last messages after you say your not going to talk about things anymore. Although, most of them are just full of useless snide comments. So, that must be why. It's not surprising. Your clearly fine with making a bunch of pointless, off topic snide comments. Just not talking about anything relevant, useful, or on topic apparently. Tah-tah. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I have no desire to continue this conversation, though I do want to explain why the Page links here on a whole sentence. The end of the previous sentence was "until this tag is better clarified." Another author followed that by "Unless it is clearly appropriate to remove it." The second sentence essentially contradicts, and/or confuses the immediately precedng phrase. We seek to better clarify the tag. Declaring "nope, and justifiable by 'clearly appropriate'" (when clarity is less-known and appropriate is in the eye of the beholder) is distinctly unhelpful. That is muddying at its muddiest and I seek clarity. So rather than inflame, I simply explain the order (and sensibility, or lack thereof) of the text, rather than redact and be seen as a hostile editor. Please make as much sense of this as you can, especially that, once again, (actually, now TWICE again), Adamant1 tried to suppress his words into an archive. I, with nothing to hide, insist they remain as openly available as possible. That's both fair and correct. Stevea (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, not to continue the conversation, none of the things SteveA keeps having an issue with violate any policy or are valid reasons for any of the actions he has taken. Discussions can be archived for many reasons and indeed they have been many times if they weren't productive or involved arguing. See the park articles discussion page for a perfect example. There is no clause, guideline, or anything else that says someone can revert someone else's edits because they don't like the motivation behind it. Nor would there be. As it's a ridiculous standard that wouldn't work and just lead to edit warring. As it did here. So, although my motivations had zero to do with hiding anything, it would have been completely irrelevant if that was why I created the archive as justification for reverting it multiple times. SteveA can "insist" on things being however he wants. That isn't the standard by which Wiki's are run. Edits aren't valid or invalid based on who is the pushiest about getting their way and an articles content doesn't default to or get dictated by the person who can do a better character assassinations of other editors. Yet this is a tactic used repeatedly SteveA. It can easily be seen repeatedly throughout both his edits and the conversations he has with people. Almost everything involving anyone else comes down to how he should get his way because the other person has bad intentions, hasn't been a user as long as him, or some other arbitrary standard that he's always the one deciding on. It's pretty obvious there is hardly, if ever, a presumption of good faith on his part toward other users, and he rarely ever evaluates things based on the actual merits of the contribution or the validity of the suggestion. That's all I have to say. I'm perfectly fine leaving the discussion here for that, and also because it wasn't really something I cared that much about in the first place. Creating the archive was only to clean up the discussion page to help make it easy for legitimate conversations to happen, without people being scared off by our arguing. If that's not something SteveA cares about, fine. Maybe he'll see it in his heart to move the stuff back to the archive for those reasons, but in the mean time I'll leave the edit warring up to him by dropping it at this point. It's not worth the disproportionate amount of effort it takes, for what is otherwise a simple basic thing, or the arguing. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)