Talk:Tag:office=engineer
Purpose of the engineer:type tag and redundancy
Is the engineer:type tag meant to tagged on an object engineered by an engineer with certain training or is it meant to tagged on an engineering office to denote what the engineering specialty of the people who work there is? Its not really clear from the description and it makes a difference. Btw, there's already an engineering=* tagging scheme being used that makes a lot more sense and doesn't uselessly use "type" or a namespace when its not necessary (cough cough over-namespacing). So, engineer:type is probably yet another redundant tag. Unless you can give a clear justification for what makes it different enough to use along side the other tag or how its enough of an improvement (or refinement) to use instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- O.k., found no documentation in the wiki, but in taginfo there are really 10 ! entries : https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/engineering. Whereas the namespace *:type "only" got several million uses https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=%3Atype. So would you like to discuss this in a proposal or on the mailing list, which one to prefer ? rtfm Rtfm (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- *:type might have several million uses, but engineer:type doesn't and *:type is just a random word. It's not even a tagging scheme. It would be like saying every tag that has the word "car" in it is usable and great because shop=car is used 108,296S times and says "car." Which is completely none sense. So, I'm not sure what your point is or how its relevant. You didn't answer my question about how engineer:type is suppose to be used either. I really don't get why you have such a hard time explaining things. If your going to suggest people use a tag, at a minimum you should at least be able to explain how exactly the tag should be used and what makes it better then other tags. And no I'm not going to discuss it in the mailing list. 1. Because you refuse to discuss anything there and I'm not doing that one sided crap where I have to jump through a bunch of hoops your not willing to 2. Because your the one that proposed the engineer:type tag. Not people on the mailing list. So the onus is on you to explain why and how its a usable tag compared to other possibilities. Not other users who didn't create the tag, aren't tagging things with it, and didn't suggest it on wiki articles. Your the one doing those things. So you justify it and explain its use. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)