values for farm produce (organizing into groups)
Why do you think tags should be grouped and put it a hierarchy? I don't really see much a benefit but the downsides are several. It makes tagging more complicated by introducing new tags depending on the produce= tag. Aswell, it's not always clear how things should be grouped since the groupings are somewhat arbitrary (eg vegetables). I think the best practice would be to specify the produce as specific as reasonably possible, then group it afterwards on the data consumer side with the help of wikidata or your own rules. DFyson (talk) 16:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
values for aquaculture produce
Query maps (?sparql or else)
Would you know how / where to query maps with these "produced" elements ?
Re: "crop=* cannot be used for all produce=*, produce=* can be used for all crop=*"
I'm not certain that the statement "crop=* cannot be used for all produce=*, where as produce=* can be used for all crop=*" is true. Please check the values in Taginfo, and also the description at the top of the page which doesn't mention any examples of crops.
Note that produce=wheat is used 6 times, vs 6449 uses of crop=wheat.
Also, there are 2207 values of crop vs only 1049 values of produce, so clearly there are some crops which have never been mapped as produce.
In use or de facto wiki pages should describe current usage. If you would like to propose that produce=* replace all uses of crop=* please make a proposal page. --Jeisenbe (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The context is that between my first and second comments, at 05:32, you reverted a 584 byte section that I had written in produce=* (see https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:produce&oldid=1890674) - that was an "unfortunate" step to take without discussion. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Crop values vs Produce values
- What is a crop? Is it not the produce of a plant? I think that correct values of the key crop are all values that can be used in produce. All correct values of the key produce cannot be used as values in the key crop. At present the tag crop=market_gardening has >7,000 uses, does that make it a good tag? I think not as 'market gardening' is not a crop! Requiring that all the values presently used in the key crop be able to be transferred to produce would simple enable bad crop values to be replicated into produce .. they would still be bad values. If you have oneor more correct values that cannot be transferred, state it/them. Warin61 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- A crop in OSM is just "a crop produced by cultivated land", so it's not clearly defined and could possibly improved by reviewing the current usage. In British English a crop can either be: " a cultivated plant that is grown on a large scale commercially, especially a cereal, fruit, or vegetable. (Oxford); or "a plant such as a grain, fruit, or vegetable grown in large amounts" (Cambridge). So it's the plant (eg cotton plant) not the produce (cotton fibers) or product (cotton cloth). However, the definition of the word "crop" does not necessarily limit how a tag is used in OSM. A review of the current use of the tag shows that many mappers are using "crop" for things like crop=poultry (468 uses) and crop=dairy (187 uses). There are uses of fast_growing_wood, wood and timber.
- Re: "I think that correct values of the key crop are all values that can be used in produce. All correct values of the key produce cannot be used as values in the key crop" - thank you for making clear that this is your opinion. There are many values of both crop=* and produce=* which might be considered "wrong" by some mappers. For example, the most common values of "produce" are "timber" and "wood", from forestry, even though Cambridge says "produce" means " food or any other substance or material that is grown or obtained through farming". That's why it is so important to focus how tags are actually used, rather than how we thing they ought to be used or what the word means in the dictionary, when we write OSM wiki documentation. I try to keep my edits factual, by describing how tags are currently used, since if we try to make the wiki about "how should these tags be used" there is no way to agree on who is correct. What if someone else says "I think the produce=* key is terrible because it's too similar to product, we should only use product=* for everything since it's simpler" and writes "don't use, see product=*" as the description for produce=*. How would you explain that this should not be done, without resorting to discussing how the tags are actually used? (Note that the description of product=* is "The output or product that a feature produces," which could certainly be taken to include agricultural features, and two of the values given as examples are "dairy" (129 uses) and "meat" (160 uses) - but in practice this tag is used mainly for the output of industrial features like factories / works). --Jeisenbe (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "What if someone else says I think the produce=* key is terrible because it's too similar to product, we should only use product=* for everything since it's simpler and writes don't use, see product=* as the description for produce=*. How would you explain that this should not be done, without resorting to discussing how the tags are actually used? " By using the section Product or Produce that I created for just that purpose. Now it has crop right in the middle of it to confuse the reader. The crop section would be better in the See Also' section. Warin61 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Single person, single view
I do not claim to express any collective view here. And I do not give any single person, including yourself, any more weight than that of a single person. Inferring anything else would need some link to that collective organisation. Warin61 (talk) 23:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
The Oxford Dictionary for the noun 'produce': Agricultural and other natural products collectively.
The OSM description for the key 'produce': Describes a feature's agricultural output produced though a natural process of growing or breeding.
That is a close match. And the use matches both dictionary and OSM.
The Oxford Dictionary for the noun 'crop': A cultivated plant that is grown on a large scale commercially, especially a cereal, fruit, or vegetable.
The OSM description for the key 'crop': The crop produced by cultivated land.
The dictionary says a plant, the OSM description is self referential so it is not clear. The OSM use looks to me to be the output.
- If you look at other dictionaries, some give a more specific definition limited to fruits and vegetables rather than crops, while other include all products:
- Dictionary.com - "noun prod·uce "12 something that is produced; yield; product.
- "13 agricultural products collectively, especially vegetables and fruits."
- Wikipedia.com "Produce is a generalized term for many farm-produced crops, including fruits and vegetables (grains, oats, etc. are also sometimes considered produce) ... In supermarkets, the term is also used to refer to the section of the store where fruit and vegetables are kept. Produce is the main product sold by greengrocers (UK, Australia) and farmers' markets."
- Cambridge Learners': "food that is grown or made in large quantities to be sold: eg. dairy produce"
- Cambridge 1: "food or any other substance or material that is grown or obtained through farming: eg agricultural/dairy/fresh produce"
- Cambridge 2: "food that is grown or raised through farming, esp. fruits and vegetables: eg local produce"
- Merriam-Webseter: 1.a. "something produced" b. "the amount produced: YIELD" 2. "agricultural products and especially fresh fruits and vegetables as distinguished from grain and other staple crops"
- So some definitions are specific to fresh fruits/vegetables eg greengrocers/supermarket produce section, sometimes all crops are included, sometimes all agricultural produce including dairy products are included, and sometimes anything produced, i.e. any product (which could include manufactured goods etc).
- This is why it is important to look at how tags are actually used in the OSM database, and how mappers understand them, rather than looking at dictionary definitions alone. The meaning of a word or term used as a tag value or key is sometimes important, but it does not usually clearly define or limit how a tag is used. But this does explain why American English speakers like me find this tag a little confusing - we usually use the noune "produce" for just fresh fruits and vegetables, or if not, for anything produced. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Current usage rate
- The current usage is describe by the taginfo information. Stating it as text is a snap shot at that time and to remain current would need to be updated. I think this is bad practice and make work that would be better spent mapping. Being 'common' does not make it a 'good tag'. The tag crop=cana-de-açúcar has >4,000 uses, is it a good tag? Or would it be better as 'sugar_cane'? The tag crop=market_gardening has >7,000 uses, does that make it a good tag? No, usage rate is just an indication and it can be a bad indication. Much better to use brains to gauge the standing of a tag. These pages should help a mapper towards the best tag to use for their feature. As such they should not confuse/divert with discussion on 'this tag is more common'. Alternative tags are normally suggested in 'See Also'? Warin61 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- crop=cana-de-açúcar is a synonym for =sugarcane. It and market_gardening were imported, so the number in this case isn't so helpful. Check the map in taginfo and check taghistory and look at the change over time to see tags that were added by one big import or one project. For example, produce=timber (the most common value today) was added almost entirely within the last 12 months. Prior to this, produce was more commonly used for agriculture and aquaculture rather than forestry (probably because the popular definition of "produce" excludes forestry products?). This information is useful to summarize in wiki pages when the taginfo numbers would be misleading otherwise.
- The current usage is certain available by searching through taginfo, but on the wiki only the overall usage for each key is shown on key pags. We could show the usage for each tag in the key by switching to taglists, but this would be a great deal of work, since most of the values are not otherwise documented, and this would still not show a comparison with the similar tags. That's why it's helpful to summarize the actual usage of the tag, compared to similar tags, even if it is snapshot at a current point in time. Since both produce=* and crop=* have been in use since 2010/2011 and widely used since 2013, the comparison will be valid for at least a year at a time. (E.g. look at the chart at https://taghistory.raifer.tech - the lines are diverging, not converging. If a less popular tag is growing quickly in use, I would note this on the page too. But it's not in this case.)
- Re: "Much better to use brains to gauge the standing of a tag. These pages should help a mapper towards the best tag to use for their feature." Based on what factual information? Based on my opinion? Your opinion? The meaning in a dictionary? This is a global, open project and most mappers do not speak English as their first language (and even the two of us are not native British English speakers). Tags (especially those with status "in use" or "de facto") are defined by how they are used most frequently, not by what you or I write in a wiki. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- A feature in OSM should match what is on the ground. The tag to use needs to be selected not by how frequently it is used. Simply using some tag because it has frequent use and looks good leads to brothels being tagged as embassies. I would encourage anyone to use their brains and the result of that thinking over some text. Warin61 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is crop so much more frequently used that produce? If I search for 'wheat' on the OSM wiki I come up with the page 'crop=wheat' as the first hit, a hit for produce is a long way down the search page. The wiki page for crop=wheat contains no real information, it is a stub but because of the search result it promotes the use of crop over product. People who investigate no further (they may simply want to get on and map rather than think about competing tags) simply use the crop key, there is no though in this case as to which is better . as the key produce is not even seen. Hence my view of frequency of use is not a good guide to the 'best' tag but rather some thinking about each should be used to gauge the relative merits. Warin61 (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Crop should not be added to the disambiguation of produce vs product section
The section correctly titled 'Produce or Product?' is there to clarify the difference between the two. Adding crop to it is confusing. Crop should go in the See also section? But is should not go here. Warin61 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Like product=*, crop=* is another similar tag that sometimes has overlapping usage. It is very helpful to explain how similar tags are commonly used. For example, the current wiki page for product just defines this as "The output or product that a feature (such as a factory) produces," so it's helpful to explain that this is not really commonly used for agricultural products (even though =dairy, =meat and =rice are values in use). Similarly, the description of produce=* implies it can be used for all types of agricultural products, but in practice crops like cereal grains and commodity crops are tagged with crop=* almost always, and trees=* is much more commonly used for orchards (it was even approved in a proposal for that usage) and usually implies the produce. Mappers ought to know about these tags: I wouldn't feel comfortable trying to redefine produce=* to exclude farmland and orchards, but mappers should be aware that there are other tags more frequently used for those features.
- Note that I have added suggestions to the Key:crop page to see produce=* for values of crop=* that are more commonly tagged with a similar produe=* value instead, such as produce=timber and produce=dairy. I'm not playing favorites here. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- No reversion. (Umm I feel like tRump?) The comments on crop and tree were moved and only moved to the section 'see also' This now means the discussion of 'product or produce' is reunited with the link to the wikipedia page on the same topic rather than being separated from it by some other discussion that has nothing to do with the disambiguation. Are those comments needed in the description of this tag? If so then similar comments need to be placed in the description on crop page. I would prefer the description to be as simple as possible and concentrate on the tag rather than divert to other tags. The disambiguation is needed as the two tags sound similar and may be taken as the same thing which they are not. Warin61 (talk) 04:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- If we are disambigulating between produce=* and product=* in this section, why shouldn't the other tags that overlap with this tag be mentioned? As you've stated, the definition of produce=* seems to imply that it can be used for cropland, orchards, plantations, aquaculture, meadows, farmyards, etc, but in practice it isn't the "de facto" tag for croplant - because crop=* is much more common, and for aquaculture the tag aquaculture=* is more common, for orchards the tag trees=* is much more common than either produce=* or crop=*. Why don't you think mappers should be aware of this factual information, so that they can decide which tag to use in an informed manner? --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "similar comments need to be placed in the description on crop page" I've made comments on values of crop=* that are more commonly tagged as produce=*, mainly forestry products (wood and timber), and I've also mentioned which values of crop=* are more commonly tagged with trees=* (for orchards) or aquaculture=* (for aquaculture areas). But the main definition of crop=* is correct: it was intended to be used for annual farm crops, and most of the usage is this way. If you want to mention produce=*, you could say something like "the tag produce=* has sometimes been used for cropland, but crop=* is much more commonly used for this". But I generally don't think it's necessary to mention much less common tags on the pages of more common tags, except in a possibleSynonym list - and even that seems unhelpful in most cases.
- Farmland, orchards, vineyards, forests etc are not part of this tag nor crop. This tag and crop are properties that can apply to other main tags. This obfuscates the discussion. Knowledge of and promotion of the output tags should be even handed, at the moment this is not the case. Should this be placed on an 'output' page similar to the page 'forests' where thay can be compared side by side? Don't know. Warin61 (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand what you mean here. Produce=* is meant for agricultural features, isn't it, not for any type of feature? Product=* is for industrial and craft manufacturing, Resource=* for mining. There is an Output_Types page, but I don't find these kinds of pages very helpful: mappers rarely see them, and often the content is opinion-based, rather than based on how tags are actually used. I personally don't care if mappers use produce=* or product=* or crop=* or aquaculture=* or trees=*, but I would like mappers to know which tags are commonly used for which features, so that mappers and database users will be aware what consensus has emerged organically from the community. --Jeisenbe (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Orchard Produce vs Trees
While the key produce=* is sometimes used for orchards, the key trees=* was approved as part of the proposal for landuse=orchard and is much more common. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/orchard and compare with taginfo:
Eg. trees=apple_trees (8918 uses) is much more common that produce=apple (389 uses): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/compare/trees=apple_trees/produce=apple
trees=orange_trees (4756 uses) is much more common that produce=orange (227 uses): https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/compare/trees=orange_trees/produce=orange
There are two options: 1) Remove mention of these types of produce from this wiki page 2) Mention the much more common tree=* tags
I think the first option is better in this case, since the use of produce=* is orchard is quite rare compared to the approved, commonly-used key trees=*. While in theory the trees in an orchard are not identical to the produce, almost all types of orchards can be fully defined with trees=* (which is also used for shrubs and bushes, not only for full-grown trees), for "each tree is recognized by it's own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes..." --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- As said on the landuse=orchard page, these versions are being used, and need to be documented. Both 'produce' and 'trees' were part of the original proposal, and there are situations where trees don't apply for those fruits. Though I'm happy enough with your option 2, to mention the practice with a higher frequency. --Polarbear w (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
- This is already stated on the page immediately after the description of the tag itself. Placing them above the description of the tag itself would be ridiculous. If you mean to place this within the description then should other items be placed there too? I can see the description then contain every thing - how to map, values etc etc. Warin61 (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
"crop=tea | Tea rendering.svg | Tea plantation. | Also see trees=tea_plants"
- So the description would also mention the much more common trees=* tag. Otherwise new mappers who visit produce=* will get the misimpression that produce=orange is a common way to tag the type of orchard, while in fact trees=orange_trees is by far the more common way, and it's what was approved by the proposal. I'm interested in this because I would like to start rendering specific types of orchards differently, and it's important to have one standard way to do this. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
Tag for what a shop sells
Re: "However there is no other tag avalible to say what a shop 'sells'"
- Produce and product are 2 different things - see the descriptions of each and the disambiguation. Both produce and product could be used as a sub tag on a shop, or a distribution centre etc. I have raised 'sells' on the tagging list .. it was taken to the bike shed. Vending is not a suitable for a shop. Warin61 (talk) 00:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
- The line was "there is no other tag avalible to say what a shop 'sells'", but produce=* is available, and sells=* has been use a few times - perhaps make a proposal for it? (I was not able to find a specific discussion of that tag on the mailing list in the past year, but perhaps it was just mentioned in other threads). So the current text is misleading. --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)