|This is my user talk page. If you have any questions about my contributions, submit them here. Please do not submit them to my user page :).|
Please stop your edits and discuss what you're doing with the community. Normally, new tags are discussed before being added to the Wiki or used. Your behavior raised some eyebrows. You're being discussed in the tagging mailing list: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2017-July/032882.html
- Sorry :(! I'll slow down; but I saw not just one other user do something similar, but two!: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dturbuary&diff=1492985&oldid=1474052, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dfungus&action=history. I'll discuss in the community from now on; especially for tags only I've used. Thank you :)!
- Technically, the guidelines do allow creating new tags, see this: Any_tags_you_like. However, it's still a good idea to discuss them first to make sure they're fine and there's no duplicates. Especially when creating lots of them. For instance, your flower tag violates Good_practice#Don.27t_map_temporary_events_and_temporary_features. -- SwiftFast (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I've never added a flower on OSM; all have been done by other users: http://overpass-turbo.eu/s/qzS :). But flowers do have roots in the ground; and maybe someone can inspect the area, and if they find the flower is gone; the flower node can be deleted.
- I'll try to propose all of them; but it won't be easy :). I'm very sorry :(; what should happen to the other pages the other people created with no proposal?
- Sincerely and thankfully yours;
- Thank you :). Outlets are probably also useful in cafes; e.g. if someone wants to know if there are any outlets where they can charge their computer from :).
- I agree. but don't create a proposal for everything just yet, this might be overkill. Please note that I'm don't know if what you did is "wrong". I just wanted to let you know that you're being discussed on the tagging mailing list. My guess is that it's fine, except that some discussion on the tagging mailing list or on some other channel is a good idea before creating a tag. But let's see if someone experienced explains this better. -- SwiftFast (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
"The user seems to have some history with bad edits. Some of the tags could be helpful. (e.g. public microwaves in campuses), but it appears this user is not familiar with OSM etiquette and just goes ahead and edits as he/she sees fit without discussing. There's also a chance of intentional vandalism, but I'm not sure.".
- I've never done intentional vandalism; and all of those edit problems were misunderstandings from over a year ago. I'd already explained to SomeoneElse from the DWG about those misunderstandings a long time ago; and everything was already resolved. Would you mind clearing that up for me on the talk list?
- Thanks for explaining to them :)! I hope they'll better understand that I try hard (and quite literally) every day to contribute to OSM in a good way. And I'll also wait for a better explanation of tag proposals, too :).
- Sincerely and thankfully yours,
I don't know how up-to-date the Wiki is, but it appears you can literally use any tag you like, and that proposal procedure is optional. The implied advice seems to be: 1. Document the tag on the Wiki 2. Do some research first and make sure it's not a duplicate. 3. Discussions are a good idea. I've done some searches, and written some related (but not precisely duplicate) tags in the section below V. -- SwiftFast (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, rant or not rant, while some of EzekielT's edits have some merit, many others appear to be a parody of the creation procedure. Look at Tag:natural=grass for example, which ridicules 4,6k uses on areas and defines to map every 'single blade of grass', with last cutting time and height of 44 millimeters. This is very much a temporary feature, temporary properties, and would flood the database with nonsense. While I would tolerate one such proposal on April 1st, the range of wiki pages created is a continuum from useful to nonsense, so there is no clear boundary where the parody ends and the seriousness starts. --Polarbear w (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll propose natural=grass once someone explains about the proposal process; like SwiftFast recommended. No need to be so frantic :)! Obviously; we don't have to map every blade of grass on the entire planet; but obviously some people may want to map at least some of them; and that's what I've been trying to make possible. I also believe it'll prove useful for biologists and conservationists. Does it really matter if the natural=grass tag exists or not? What is the benefit of having no natural=grass tag? Also, the use of natural=grass on areas is actually a mistake; those should be mapped as natural=grassland. Grass is stationary; which is why we can map them. No one's asking to map things that move like dogs or people! EzekielT (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
- It appears you are making a parody even of this discussion. The proposal process is explained in the wiki. Your freedom of tagging ends where you enter what others are doing in a significant scale. If you are unhappy how others use a particular tag, make a proposal to deprecate it. But do not redefine existing tagging just as you think it should be, this is not appropriate here. --Polarbear w (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is a parody or not but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You need to understand some things:
- OSM is about mapping things that:
- Don't change so easily or quickly - this kills out grass blades, flowers, stools.
- Are of public interest - This rules out weed in your neighbor's backyard, private televisions, private washing machines.
- Are not ultra-specific - OSM is not a 3d-reconstruction of the world and is not about mapping everything. Things like a chair's leg width or the location of a blade of grass are not interesting to anyone.
- Your opinion about natural=grass vs natural=grassland doesn't matter. You don't document your own opinion, you document the current usage. And in practice people are using natural=grass for mapping grasslands, not single blades of grass. So the tag documentation is simply wrong.
- I believe your television, washing_machine, and microwave tags are useful. All those are common in campuses, campsites, etc. I've edited the articles and emphathized the idea that they should be public, and not private e.g. in personal houses. I also added amenity=dryer.
- Flower, Grass, and some stools, are all temporary features and are not a good idea.
- Some stools may be permanent, but consider stuffing them with your seat tag. This is common in OSM; one generic tag and one optional tag for the specifics, e.g. building=office, office=something_more_specific. It allows nonspecific data consumers to also handle it well. So maybe: amenity=seat, and an optional seat_type or something.
- the Seat tag may or may have not some merit esp. for indoor mapping. But should be discussed with indoor mappers etc.
I have a plan:
A contributor sees a flower, weed, stool, etc.,
Waits a month,
And if it's still there; maybe they can map them. Then maybe they can continue checking to make sure it's still there (if not, it can be deleted). But actually; there's a key for identifying temporary objects: the key temporary; which I did not create :)!
First, that temporary key is a draft.
Second, if you read on, it is about temporary road closures which have a clearly defined time range, and are important for navigation/routing. The other application is humanitarian support on disaster relief, such as collapsed buildings or refugee tents.
Please do not compare these useful and serious applications with mapping a single plant of "weed", observed in 2016 in your "cousin's backyard", mapped in 2017.
Just wanted to show the relation between the new tags and existing tags.
amenity=outlet somewhat duplicates power_supply. The difference is that power_supply tags the entire place, whilst amenity=outlet is can be more specific and tags the outlets themselves (kind of like natural=wood vs natural=tree). power_supply is part of the campsite proposal, but I see no reason why it can't be used generically too (e.g. for cafes).
- I hadn't noticed the key power_supply before, thanks for telling me :)! I've been thinking that maybe we can re-purpose power=outlet to be a USB, Lightning or other type of port; e.g. inside a cafe or elsewhere. According to taginfo, amenity=outlet hasn't been used yet :). The tag power=outlet has been used twice :).
amenity=washing_machine somewhat duplicates Tag:shop=laundry, except that it's more specific like above. Also, shop=laundry implies a nonfree service. (Perhaps it should have been called amenity=laundry instead), and amenity=washing_machine can be used for free services too.
- We could tag a node with shop=laundry, and individually map each washing machine inside the laundromat, including which brand it is :).
There's already washing_machine=yes and dryer=yes, but these are only used for campsites. --(who said that?)
- Nothing stops us from using washing_machine=yes and dryer=yes on other facilities such as student dormitories etc. Thus there is no need for separate amenity tags. --Polarbear w (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)