User talk:Nospam2005

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

EN: If you want to drop me a line about any changes or suggestions I made, please do so here ;-).

FR: Si vous voulez me contacter au sujet d'une modification ou d'une proposition que j'ai faite, faites-le ici.

DE: Eine Reaktion über eine Änderung oder einen Vorschlag die bzw. den ich gemacht habe? Ja, bitte hier!

Deprecation proposal


Tu avais proposé de déprécier l'usage de "building=funeral_hall" et j'ai dit que je ferais une proposition en ce sens après le vote sur "amenity=funeral_hall", m'imaginant qu'il devait y avoir un processus analogue à celui des propositions "positives".

Or, je n'en trouve pas du tout, ce genre de processus. Une quelconque idée ?


Vollis (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Bonjour, je vois avec des "spécialistes" de propositions.
le processus normal (en remplaçant l'ajout par une dépréciation) ne convient pas ?
En tous cas le fait de ne pas mélanger les deux a été un succès (conforme avec l'expérience : un vote simple passe, un vote sur plusieurs choses échoue souvent).
--Nospam2005 19:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Entre-temps, j'ai trouvé ceci : [1]
Je pourrais peut-être faire la même chose et remplacer "Discourage" par "Deprecate"...
Vollis (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
OK, sinon il faut mettre à jour (photos, lien vers amenity=funeral_hall - sauf si on se contente de funeral_hall=yes si on ne veut pas distinguer). --Nospam2005 (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
KISS : le couple en question n'existe pas officiellement, il n'est donc pas à déprécier^^. On a eu des retours contre ce tag, donc autant passer en revue les 42 cas et demander au créateur s'il serait choqué par mettre building=yes et d'ajouter un point amenity=funeral_hall. --Nospam2005 (talk) 08:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Undiscussed revert

@Nospam2005, could you please explain your undiscussed revert ? In which way are the speculations about "doubts if such an architecture exists" more neutral, which is the only comment in your changeset? What kind of neutrality are you looking for? I had put the phrase in question on the discussion page, why did you not use the discussion and instead reverted immediately? --Polarbear w (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

IMHO, the comment is self-explaining and refers to the previous discussion you mentioned for changing quite radically - without discussion - the wiki page. It is NOT a full revert but a partial revert, taking into account the previous version but also the the point you mentioned. I could have changed the comment as it it not a full revert. I don't think it would have been better.
If you're able to define the architecture of such a building, please explain it in the discussion page. I would be happy to read it. --Nospam2005 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
As I do not understand why speculations about architecture and reference to a non-agreed deprecation proposal is "more neutral", it is apparently not self-explaining. It was indeed a full revert, in contrary to what you say above, and not partial, as you fully removed my sentence and restored the previous paragraph, with adding a ref to the discussion page. You can see that evidenced by comparing before my and after your edit: . The discussion you miss happened on the tagging list. See a definition of the building type (not any architecture which is a form of art) in the value definition of building=funeral_hall. --Polarbear w (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
So you mean the discussion is not on the wiki. We have a wiki page and a discussion page on the page, but the discussion is not on the discussion page. Pretty much non sense, no problem to do that as long as the result is given on the discussion page.
BTW, refusing to depreciate a tag that has never been approved, that has never been defined, is, how to say, well... --Nospam2005 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
You might have a fundamental misconception how communication and tag creation works in OSM. There are plenty, even too many, communication channels in OSM where discussions can happen. A significant one for tagging decisions is the tagging mailing list. As OSM allows the free creation of tags, deprecation is generally frowned upon. In particular for a situation where a value for a feature makes a lot of sense and no alternative is being provided. OSM allows to use and document a new tag without voting. --Polarbear w (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Professor! I’m saying that a wiki page exists, that a discussion page for the wiki page exists and if you want to refer to another place (that I know of course), then the result of the discussion should be on the discussion page. This seems straight forward. You are trying to create a tag ex nihilo without vote, that’s not how OSM is supposed work. –Nospam2005 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am not entitled to be called Professor. May I ask if you even contribute to OSM, I could not relate your wiki name to any OSM user? You seem to be unfamiliar to many practices in OSM, in particular You can use any tags you like, but please document them here on the OpenStreetMap wiki, see Any_tags_you_like.
There is a separate tag Key:building:architecture to tag a building's architecture. --Polarbear w (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop being ridiculous. You perfectly know that Key:building:architecture describes the architecture style not the general layout of a building. --Nospam2005 (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop getting personal. I am glad you finally understand that building=* tags the building type, or general layout in your words, and not the architecture. --Polarbear w (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Question 2

Maybe merge that into question one? Question 1 already seems a lot like a statement rather than a question, question 2 even more so. TBH I am not sure what kind of answer you expect here or what would be even the demand you want to make. That mapbox should hand over the source code for the "easily add details of your business to openstreetmap"-tool? There are many such tools out there you know. And in any case, how has this anything to do with the OSMF board? --Westnordost (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Very true for the merge suggestion - it was also my suggestion but he doesn't agree with it. His own right! My expectation is a clarification: is it a normal behaviour? Should we have also a requirement for editors or contributions to suggest also "neutral" editors? IMHO, it has to do with the board because it helps to understand the vision of the OpenStreetMap ecosystem from the candidates, whatever this vision is. There is no good or bad answer here - not only good for me but wrong for another, I can also change my mind. --Nospam2005 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2021 (UTC)