I see that you removed and readded incorrect combination, probably because it appeared anyway (in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:building%3Dtrain_station&diff=1954497&oldid=1954495 ). It was caused by a data item (not my favorite idea) with an incorrect data. To fix it it is necessary to select the gray pencil in the infobox and eradicate wrong data also there. In this case at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q6491 Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Re: Remove note about not mapping a pin. There's no reason not to tag the pin on the end of the 'hole' way. It improves the quality of the map. Place the pin near the centre of the green. The green & pin tags are *not* synonymous.
In my point of view this is an incorrect mapping practice, as the pin's location is by definition volatile. It can be essentially anywhere on the green of a hole, and usually does change in relatively short intervals (weekly/daily). Mapping just a "random" point in the centre of the green does not improve the quality of the map at all, since the midpoint of a polygon can be computed easily and more accurately than a mapper can eyeball it. A map renderer can alternatively also use the last vertex of the respective golf=hole way as a proxy of the approximate average pin location. Mapping the pin could even trigger unnecessary edits, for example when different mappers use different aerial imagery which show the pin flag at different locations on the green. This could lead to edits which just change the pin location from one possible pin location to another and back and forth.
The recommendation not to map the pins has been documented on the wiki for a very long time (at least since March 2014: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:leisure%3Dgolf_course&oldid=1006704), and I have not seen community discussion reaching a consensus that this should be changed. It could however be the case that I've missed something in this regard. If so, can you point me to where this was discussed?
@Tyr: >In my point of view this is an incorrect mapping practice, as the pin's location is by definition volatile.
A map isn't a millimetre precise model of the real world: It's a symbolic *representation*.
>It can be essentially anywhere on the green of a hole, and usually does change in relatively short intervals (weekly/daily).
>Mapping just a "random" point in the centre of the green does not improve the quality of the map at all,
Having a pin represented adds more quality to the database than not having it at all.
> since the midpoint of a polygon can be computed easily and more accurately than a mapper can eyeball it.
1. So what? It's a representation. 2. No one is going to do that, especially OSM-Carto!
>A map renderer can alternatively also use the last vertex of the respective golf=hole way as a proxy of the approximate average pin location.
1. Or the mappers can add a tag to the hole way endpoint. 2. It was a PItA to get OSM-Carto to render golf features at all, so that, again it's not going to happen.
> This could lead to...
"could", Sorry but these hypotheticals sound like barrel scraping.
>To strengthen my point of view: there are currently only 21k golf=pin objects mapped
That sounds like a good reason to add more of them! OSM-UK organises quarterly projects to perform similar actions.
> The recommendation not to map the pins...
21,144 (and growing) entries disagree. Over time requirements & desires change. Something that was perceived to be correct in 2014, isn't justification now.
>and I have not seen community discussion reaching a consensus that this should be changed.
There's no requirement to discuss. 21,144 is a consensus.
- Please provide a link to the 2014ish discussion that concluded pin shouldn't be mapped.
- Oh, look:
- > Inconsequential
- I cannot follow you on this one. The wiki had a warning about the fact that the pin's location is volatile since the tag was first documented. Why would it be inconsequential to apply one of OSM's core principles of not mapping temporary features here as well? That's what I want to understand.
- > 2. No one is going to do that, especially OSM-Carto!
- Pardon me, why would OSM Carto be unable to do this? It does it all the time, for example when placing icons of POIs (like shops, etc.) which are mapped as polygons.
- > 21,144 (and growing) entries disagree.
- My argument was that the relative amount of golf=hole versus golf=pin is decreasing constantly over time: in 2013 it was around 50%, in 2017 it went down to 40%, now it is only at about 15%. Isn't that a trend you can recognize?
- > Over time requirements & desires change.
- I totally agree that this is sometimes the case. But to me it seems that a recommendation which has been accepted and not challenged for almost a decade should only be changed if it is actually discussed in a larger round on the wiki, and not just because a single person or small group thinks that the opinion of the community might have changed, especially if the numers speak against it.
- > There's no requirement to discuss.
- I honestly think there is. Why do you shy the discussion? Do you fear the outcome will not be in your favour?
- > Please provide a link to the 2014ish discussion that concluded pin shouldn't be mapped.
- I don't have one, but I think it is fair to say that something which stood on the OSM wiki for almost a decade can be regarded as "de facto" accepted. Is that unreasonable to say?
- > Oh, look:
- I do see and accept that the fact that OSM Carto renders this feature is somewhat pointing in the direction that the tag might have some merit. On the other hand there were concerns raised about it in the issue which were not addressed by the project contributors/maintainers. Maybe it was simply overlooked in the process?
- Cheers, Martin -- Tyr (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Platform 2 is a name
Hi, could explain why do you think it is not a name in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dplatform#Platform_2_is_a_name. Pawcio (talk) 08:11, 29 August 2022 (UTC)