User talk:Lsdjfk

Historic=mine edits

Hi there. Do you mind if I ask why you changed historic=mine to De Facto and also updated it to mapable on areas? I don't a see a proposal page for it anywhere that's had a vote. Which I'm pretty sure it needs to have for it to qualify as De Facto. It's also pretty clear from the tag description and usage that it isn't suppose to be used for mapping areas. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I equalized the english version with the more progressed german page. I didn't know that it needs a proposal page to be in de facto state. Only the possibility for way and relation was my insertion, because it makes sense and is also used many times (see Taginfo). It was my first try to enhance this wiki. I'm always receptive to tips. --Lsdjfk (talk) 11:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

What more progressed German page did you use? Other then English, I only see a Dutch and Russian translation of the article and both of them only say it should be mapped as a node. As far as the status, I'm pretty sure it needs to be a community approved to be de facto. Which is done through a proposal page and a successful vote. That's what makes something de facto in the first place versus just in use. Although, passing a vote might just give the tag "approved" status. I'll have to look into it more. As I can't remember now. On the area mapping, it might be mapped as areas, but it could just be bad mapping. Ultimately, if the article and actual mapping disagree, the best thing to do is start a discussion on the articles talk page about it and than change the article based on community consensus if any is reached. As a lot of times things like that are miss-tagging and articles are suppose to represent how things should be mapped and the best procedure for doing so. Not every possible way something can be or is mapped. Thanks. Happy editing ;)--Adamant1 (talk) 12:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I used this one: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:historic%3Dmine. Okay, now I'm a bit overwhelmed, because I'm still new as a wikimember. If you want to, you can revert my changes or correct them. Btw: How can I answer correct to this discussion? I only found the source editing which isn't user-friendly (for the --Lsdjfk (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

So, wouldn't the area of a historic mine, which I assume would be mostly filled in but even if it wasn't, be tagged as landuse=quarry or landuse=landfill (I lean toward landuse=quarry myself)? As far as what would be the "correct" answer, there isn't really one. This is an ongoing process and we are all just figuring it out as we go along. We just discuss things. Then decide what's best based on that discussion, but it's always evolving. So there is no "right" answer in the literal sense of an ultimate, final truth about this that we can come to. At least that's how I see it. Others would probably disagree. How ever you see it, don't take questions as judgments about you or your edits, because they aren't. It's just an attempt to better refine inherently imperfect things through conversation. While using an imperfect medium to do it with ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)