User talk:501ghost

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello. I am Casper. I'm from the Netherlands. My username in OSM is Friendly_Ghost.

New vote on Evaporation ponds

Thanks for voting! There were a few minor issues that were discovered after the vote started, and therefore the vote has been restarted. If you want you can participate in the new vote that was started at Proposed_features/Evaporation_basin. --ZeLonewolf (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

About PossibleSynonym|service|access

service=access is probably used in the meaning of this service way serves as an access way to properties. You are right that it is probably a tagging mistake (this is service=alley territory), but probably not for access=*. --JeroenHoek (talk) 11:21, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi JeroenHoek. Thank you for the feedback. On which page would this deprecation notice fit better? --501ghost (talk) 13:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessarily wrong, although I wouldn't use it myself. service=* for highway=service is documented as user-defined, so anyone can come up with a value. You can see the same value in use for footway=access for highway=footway as well. I think the semantics for alley (as used in OSM for highways) are the same as for access (they both have access to the rear of properties as a defining characteristic), but it's hard to tell what people mean by it. --JeroenHoek (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
footway=access is only used 431 times. I'm happy with user-defined values for service=* and footway=*, but they should be at least somewhat meaningful, which is not the case here as they conflict with access=* and as you said are difficult to interpret. That's why I think these values should be marked for deprecation. --501ghost (talk) 14:12, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
They don't conflict though, access=* is a key (left-hand side); these tag-values are values (right-hand side). They are valid tag-values (because of the user defined part in the specification of service=*), which means that deprecating them would require broad support, or even a proposal. Have a look at their use, it is in use all over the globe. Did you come across cases where mappers where confused or misapplying these tags? --JeroenHoek (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Jeroen. By "conflict", I meant conflicting meanings. Since the tag is undocumented, unaware mappers may have different interpretations of what this "access" tag means, and I noticed that its use is very inconsistent. I checked the Overpass Turbo query and I could not find any cases where this tag could not be replaced by any of the documented values, notably service=driveway and service=parking_aisle. See for example ways 813636282, 780247584, 50691906, 483788148 and 447152406.

Personally I would save deprecations by means of proposal for widely used tags, because these are of broad community interest. This tag is only used hundreds of times, so notifying people of documented alternatives to this rare and undocumented tag seems to me like a good idea. By deprecating it, we can make existing OSM data more consistent to increase user-friendliness of the data. If you have found a good use for this tag that I have missed, feel free to contradict me. --501ghost (talk) 19:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I see what you mean, you worry that the word 'access' leads mappers to conclude that this has to do with access=*. The problem with user-defined tagvalue-spaces is that you can't unilaterally decide to deprecate one, even if the reasoning is sound (I am neither for nor against it, but I see your objection). I think you would have to poll the Tagging mailing list at least. If there is broad consensus discouraging that tag-value seems fine, but a bunch of mappers have opted to use that tag-value a few hundred times (and also any tags you like), so some community buy-in seems needed. You can also document service=access and fill in its info template with the meaning of it and a warning not to confuse it with access=*. That way it shows up in TagInfo as well. --JeroenHoek (talk)
There are no communities which favour this tag over other schemes, which leads me to believe that it's a mistake that people everywhere sometimes make, similar to spelling errors. Judging by the infrequent and inconsistent usage of the tag, it can safely be upgraded to documented alternatives such as driveway or parking aisle without any loss of valuable information. People who follow the mailing lists are capable of providing other insights, but I don't think that is necessary in this small case. Since OSM doesn't have any prohibited tags, everything is ATYL, but we have to maintain consistency in the data to ensure good quality. --501ghost (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


Hi Casper! The paragraph you've removed from Key:ruins is not the personal opinion of the person that wrote it. It is also my opinion and the opinion of at least two other contributors, see Talk:Proposed_features/ruins#Deprecate historic=ruins (using a ruins=yes tag). Therefore, i've taken the liberty to restore the paragraph adding references. I hope this is okay for you. Otherwise, it may make sense to discuss this on the mailing list. Best regards, Raphael --Dafadllyn (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Raphael! Thank you for sending me this message and for improving and referencing the paragraph. This is entirely okay with me. My main concern is that all points of view are well-documented, because that's what the Wiki is for. Maybe I'll join the mailing list discussion, but not today. Best regards, Casper --501ghost (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you are okay with my revert. ☺️ There is no discussion on the mailing list (yet) about how to tag ruins. This was just a suggestion for the case you didn't agree. Best regards, Raphael --Dafadllyn (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Name tag misuse

Hi, The misuse of the name field is not only done with sport = soccer but in other tags as well. This is well documented in I have removed the entry from sport = soccer page as it relates to the misuse of the name tag not simply the sport soccer. If you want the mappers who added the tag you mention should be contacted for correction. Warin61 (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Warin. I agree with you. Documenting every descriptive name may clutter the Wiki too much. Thank you for reverting that edit. Have a good day. --501ghost (talk) 17:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)