User talk:Geozeisig
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Changing status' of tags
Hi. I noticed you've been changing the status' of some in use tags to de facto lately. Do you mind if I ask why your changing them and what your basing the change in status' on? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- For de facto it is said: "the tag is in widespread use, it was not approved in a proposal process, it has a widespread acceptance among mappers". See also: Tag_status --geozeisig (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what the article says. I just wanted to know your personal opinion since your the one changing the status'. I guess it mostly comes to down to what makes something "in use" versus "de facto." Like you look at the article the way it describes "in use" tags could apply to all the ones you changed. Like with office=association, it was been "in use" for six years until you changed it. I guess we could maybe say it's de facto now because of the numbers, but then the article says that some in use tags are very common, but somewhat debated. I'm not going to claim office=association is somewhat debated, but there is some overlap with it and club=*. Either way, I'd like to know what exactly made you decide in that case to change it despite the status being the same for six years and more generally how are you deciding if a tags status should be changed or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I could not commit to an exact number from when a feature earns the status de facto. There are features that are common and others are rare. But the number of > 23000 for office=association is already much. You could write a proposal for a lot of things and get the status approved, but that won't work in many cases because of too low turnout. The status de facto is very similar to the status approved, it has been confirmed here by a large number of the applications. Of course, the tag should not be controversial. If you have the impression that office=association is controversial, we should clear it up. --geozeisig (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm aware of what the article says. I just wanted to know your personal opinion since your the one changing the status'. I guess it mostly comes to down to what makes something "in use" versus "de facto." Like you look at the article the way it describes "in use" tags could apply to all the ones you changed. Like with office=association, it was been "in use" for six years until you changed it. I guess we could maybe say it's de facto now because of the numbers, but then the article says that some in use tags are very common, but somewhat debated. I'm not going to claim office=association is somewhat debated, but there is some overlap with it and club=*. Either way, I'd like to know what exactly made you decide in that case to change it despite the status being the same for six years and more generally how are you deciding if a tags status should be changed or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Since status draft is no longer used with tag descriptions and a lot of tags have got status in use, I support changing to de facto for widespread tags. In the absence of a fixed regulation, the assignment cannot be made without a personal assessment at the moment. My personal criteria (if I should name which one) are more or less: usage (several thousands, in the majority of cases >10,000), age (tag is used for years, about 4 or more), not blatant controversial at first glance. --Chris2map (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Both of your suggestions for what makes something de facto seem reasonable. I've seen a couple of times where the status of a tag was changed to de facto even though the usage was extremely low just because it was the only tag that served that particular purpose, which I don't think would qualify. Something like >10,000 uses over X amount of years and the tag not being controversial seems fine though. I just don't want to see people trying to turn tags with extremely low usage and half-baked articles into the standard by arbitrarily changing their status'. Not to say your doing that Geozeisig, but there's a discussion on the community forums related to that. So I thought I'd ask. Personally, I'd love to see more fixed standards for this stuff. Otherwise, it kind of negates the usefulness of even having them in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Since status draft is no longer used with tag descriptions and a lot of tags have got status in use, I support changing to de facto for widespread tags. In the absence of a fixed regulation, the assignment cannot be made without a personal assessment at the moment. My personal criteria (if I should name which one) are more or less: usage (several thousands, in the majority of cases >10,000), age (tag is used for years, about 4 or more), not blatant controversial at first glance. --Chris2map (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
rejected (status)
Hi Geozeisig, what is your opinion with status rejected? I wanted to correct the status for Tag:site=piste and it's data item, and then stumbled on two different edits from you: 1)Tag:amenity=training 2)Tag:site=piste In both cases the proposal was rejected. But you set one tag to rejected and one to in use. - I'm generally quite at a loss with the assignment of a tag status. However, I would also assign the first case to in use at the moment. Actually, there should be something like "in use with rejected proposal". --Chris2map (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do not see a connection between the two I will rather look at each case individually.
- At Tag:site=piste there is a proposal from 2014, which is also a few years ago. There are now over 1100 applications (chronology). I also take this as a vote. And on openskimap.org the ski resorts are displayed (This is what caught my eye and I came across the theme). The ski resorts can be displayed only by relations with site=piste. Furthermore, there is no other feature that conflicts with it.
- Tag:amenity=training Training is a very general term. It can mean different things. In the paragraph See also you can find features that are more suitable. I have not found a case that should not be replaced. Perhaps this should be better highlighted on the wiki page.
- Did you see that Key:site_type was changed from status deprecated to de facto? --geozeisig (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC) translated with deepl.com/translator --That was a covert rollback to Nov. 2022 I don't want to get involved. Chris2map (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)