Talk:Tag:diet:meat=yes

Initial documentation

At over a thousand uses quite well distributed over the globe, this tag seems in need of documentation. I have started the first iteration based on my observations of its use. I don't expect to have gotten it exactly right and matching the (private) definition of every mapper who used it, but it seems like a reasonable start.

This tag is currently only used with yes. It differs in this from the other diet tags. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This entire documentation page reads like a personal diary

Should be rewritten to be neutral and get right to the point on how to use the tag. "a bit odd" "At first glance" "silly" should not be the style used in documentation. Mxdanger (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

And I wondered what should seafood use? It doesn't work for that perspective either.

This could use meat=* (not a necessity with butcher=* on shop=butcher ) / food:meat=*

Another more useful nutrient-rich classification could be diet:protein=* Kovposch (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this tag, as such, is not the best. I just documented according to its use to prevent confusion and help others understand what it seems to mean. If anyone cares enough it could certainly be improved by proposing a different tag (e.g., meat_centric=yes, but I doubt this one will go away without an actual vote to deprecate it. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

At the same time, one should consider whether not documenting its disadvantages sufficiently would encourage its growth for no benefit. For "Examples include steak-houses and barbecue restaurants or fast-food joints", cuisine=* is not only "wanting to be more specific", but also more meaningful. It's not very useful to add diet:meat=* to these.

It may be a cuisine=* editing mistake. diet:chicken=* increased at similar years, supporting this reason. Kovposch (talk) 13:23, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

What is wrong with 'silly', 'odd', and 'at first glance'? Why shouldn't we use those words in the documentation for a project which prides itself for being maintained by a multitude of volunteers who mostly eschew bland corporate language? This tag is odd (read the page and you'll understand why), it can seem silly at first glance, but it seems to have a purpose. That purpose is not what you would normally expect from a tag in diet:*=* — it was never used for an actual carnivore diet, but rather for meat-centric restaurants. Perhaps this is not the right key name for such a meaning; I have no opinion on that. This tag was (and is) used often enough to warrant documenting it, and that is what I did several years ago. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:04, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with @JeroenHoek here. Zimtschnecke (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You are creating a false dilemma with "bland corporate language". Other 2 are fine, but "silly" is better be avoided on any serious wiki. Avoids being judgemental and emotional to either side. Kovposch (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

By the way, the first paragraph defines the tag's meaning (with the essential information in bold), and the 'how to tag' section is direct and succinct. Today's hyperfocus on this one single wiki page in a huge wiki filled with plenty of pages in actual need of attention (and lots of tags lacking documentation) seems odd and silly, encroaching on bullying. --JeroenHoek (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Someone finding an article to comment on it isn't "hyperfocus" , let alone "bullying". There's no expectation on a random user to raise all problems, or discuss it comprehensively.

A 2nd user finding this on Special:RecentChanges aren't these either. You're exaggerating.

In fact, "silly" is only used on 3 tags. The word is indeed uncommon.

• Tag:shop=kiosk
• Tag:highway=living_street

Kovposch (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

So we can only use words which are used at least twenty times? That, is silly. --JeroenHoek (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say this. My conclusion from this statistics is it's "uncommon". You are overreacting. Discussing the language is a common part of wiki. ---- Kovposch (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Removed the living_street one -- not because of the word silly but because it lacks any informational value. Duja (talk) 09:11, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Why? It only lacks examples. Kovposch (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

I see no value in statement that basically says "some features have been mapped badly". We can say that for every tag. It's up to the Wiki editor to provide examples, if there are indeed legitimate border cases, not leave the readers confused. Duja (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Have you misunderstood it? It's about the reality being poorly built, not bad OSM data. Kovposch (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You mean, it read "signed" (reality) rather than "tagged" (OSM data)?
It might be the case, but without a (couple of) example(s) it's still useless as documentation. Besides, basing a documentation on weird corner cases is never a good thing to do. Duja (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2026 (UTC)