User talk:Warin61

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I have raised the tagging philosophy/order issue on both my diary and the tagging talk group.

Proposed feature: Temperature

Hi Warin, I've posted a couple of remarks for your Temperature proposal (which I fully support). You don't have to answer there, let's postpone till you enter the discussion phase and discuss in the mailing list. Just take them into account. --Kotya (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding a comment on my behalf

Please never ever add anything signed by someone else's name in the future! Chrabros (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

drinking water

Water taps which are offering drinking water can, are (and IMHO should) also be tagged with the more generic amenity=drinking_water generic feature tag, that doesn’t mean you can’t also add the drinking_water=yes property as well. The only reason I voted yes for man_made=water_tap is indeed this compatibility. —Dieterdreist (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Dear Warin61,

We would like to invite you to voting in the case of the proposed Deletion policy for wiki pages and files. Based on the input of several contributors, we drafted a deletion policy over the span of two and a half months. Among other things, the policy proposes a centralised discussion page for all cases which are not mentioned explicitly.

Kind regards, EzekielT

PS: I wrote this message on your talk page, because you were involved in a long dispute about deleting in 2018 and 2019 which now led to this policy draft. — EzekielT (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Links to end_date=*

Regarding your recent edits, those links have been removed deliberately because the tag has been repeatedly used "wrongly". Not sure if anything changed since that but I do not think they can be used as "lifecycle" tags, as far as I know end_date can be used only in special combinations. So if you add links some care is needed to ensure that people don't mix it up. RicoZ (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits? You mean wiki page edits? It have been some time since I did any of those? The Open Historical Map uses end date to signify when a feature ceased. I would think a link to them might be appropriate. The present text on the Comparison of life cycle concepts says 'depreciated and discouraged' yet it has a purpose if the end date is known, so is still a valid tag if used correctly. There are disused and abandoned tags that can use end date to signify when these ceased to be of use. I think saying that a tag should be 'depreciated and discouraged' because it has been repeatedly used "wrongly" is a failure to communicate with those who have made the error. Warin61 (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are used in OHM and iirc OHM isn't very happy with them either. End_date can be used correctly in OSM but given it has different semantics in OHM and OSM I consider it problematic. I have seen some alternatives which I consider better.. no need to have users shooting their own feet. It looks ok in the Comparison of life cycle concepts but I was looking at [1] . RicoZ (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
What alternatives? Are they documented? If they are not documented then they are not defined, so there use could change. Is there an example of the {key|end_date}} being used incorrectly? Thanks for the link to where I edited the wiki page .. I had forgotten it! Humm Is there a place where this 'unapproved and discouraged' discussion took place? I have used {key|end_date}} but only for a few disused/abandoned things .. I think I transferred them to OHM, which is where my interest came from. Warin61 (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
The date namespace can be used as alternative and a few variations exist if you look through databases. Yes there used to be cases where both tags were used incorrectly which became less of an issue since they were discouraged. See ml "[Talk-at] Objekte mit start_date/end_date" and there must be more. They are correct in OHM or with a prefix like planned: or abandoned: or "currently operational" objects but anything else is pretty difficult at the very least and iirc one of the core devs stated that they will never support those tags in any way. RicoZ (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverting factual edits

Warin, You've reverted a number of factually correct edits which I made to several pages today. I've documented the reason for the changes in the comments and on the relevant talk pages, but you haven't responded, instead continuing to edit the pages. It does not appear that your edits have been based on research of the current usage of these tags. Please discuss at Talk:Key:product, Talk:Key:crop. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have changed some of your edits to reflect disagreement with your edits. On Talk:Key:produce you allowed 2 hours response time? I have made no changes to the product=* page, I think you mean produce=* and the related crop=*. Comparisons of tags that do not clarify the differences but rather support the use of one over the other should not be on the main page but on the discussion page where sequenced discussions can be had rather than 'edit wars'. The frequency of use should not be a determining factor in the use of a tag but it's logic and match to the feature. Stating that some tag is more common is a snap shot of the present and would have to be revised from time to time. As the frequency of use is shown on the page under taginfo I see no point in adding this text at all. Further discussion on Talk:Key:produce and Talk:Key:crop. Warin61 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Relevant responses at Talk:Key:produce and Talk:Key:crop. Re "allowed 2 hours response time? - I wrote you here at 05:42 after you again reverted one of my changes at 05:32, even though 2 hours previously I had requested discussion. See
I am not constantly, or even 2 hourly, connected to all my forms of communication! Delays of one form of communication can reasonably be expected, and they can be significant delays. Warin61 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Factual Data

The factual data you refer to is the rate of use in the data base? This was then used as a reason why mappers should use the 'more common tag'. The evaluation should be on the match between the feature and the tag, how frequently it is used should be a minor matter. Warin61 (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Parentheses(round brackets) in OSM values allowed or not ?

Warin, you said (No brackets in OSM values, so there is no option for (s). For multiple dunes see erg) , but IF those (s) IS allowed, then there would be 'opportunity' to 'handle' also some 'other issues' ... so,is it allowed to make a landform=dune(s) and also a landcover=tree(s), or gives that 'complications' ? --Henke54 (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The normal method of specifying more than one OSM value is with a forward slash e.g. landform=dune/dunes/*. Usually one value applies to both singular and many. However dune mapping has been either for the ridge or the single dune area, not for more than one dune. So I like erg - already has some use and applies to many dunes. Using erg on the area and then dune on ways for significant dune ridges might get good rendering? Erg rendering similar to sand but use a tilde mark, dune ridges similar to a double sided cliff? Changing the present practice of mapping one due to many dunes can lead to confusion, as there is for landcover=tree vs landcover=trees. PS sorry for the delayed reply - tea on keyboard has put my usual computer out of action. This one needed a new operating system. Warin61 (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Erg, also called 'sand sea' seems to be different from a 'smaller' dune field -> North America has no ergs as a result. The continent’s largest dune fields—the Algodones in CALIFORNIA, White Sands in NEW MEXICO, and Great Sand Dunes in COLORADO—are too small to qualify as ergs. ...hmmm, and that is 'contradicting' a wikipedia statement -> The only active erg in North America is in the Gran Desierto de Altar that extends from the Sonoran Desert in the northwestern Mexican state of Sonora to the Yuma Desert of Arizona and the Algodones Dunes of southeastern California. An erg that has been fixed by vegetation forms the Nebraska Sandhills. (EDIT; Mexico, which has the Gran Desierto de Altar, is ALSO in North America, so, that article is contradicting itself ) ... So,in Europe there are no erg's it seems ... Also, it seems that there are several types of dunes ... so, landform=dune and Tag:landform=dune keeping then ? And delete Landform=dune(s) and Tag:landform=dune(s) or make a Landform(tag)=dunes(like in 'similarity' with landcover=trees ... which in my opinion could be better landcover=tree(s) as i stated before) or what ? All in all, it seems that the word dune field is all encompassing , because an erg is also a dune field, but a large one -> A collection of dunes is called a dune belt or dune field. A large dune field is called an erg. An erg is defined as a desert area that contains more than 125 square kilo metres of aeolian or wind-blown sand and where sand covers more than 20% of the surface.--Henke54 (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, had not realized there is a size restriction on ergs. I am for keeping Tag:landform=dune as a single due as I outlined above. Any area of dunes I had thought could be tagged Tag:landform=erg. I chose erg as it already exists in the data base, looks to be used for smaller areas e.g. Way 535328022, Way 225179090, Way 373005450. I would much rather have a single tag to cover any area of multiple dunes, Tag:landform=dune_sea? Is there a size restriction on that? Possibly OSM use of erg could follow the real world use of the term as demonstrated in Africa? Note: this is the reason why lists are good - usually more than a couple of people looking at it.
A dune sea IS an erg and also called a (large)dune field ->A "dune field" is an area covered by extensive sand dunes.Large dune fields are known as ergs. but 'smaller' dune fields are also in Europe it seems -> Coastal dune fields in Ireland ... In the Netherlands, almost all dune fields were transformed into pine (Pinus sylvestris) plantations during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. ... Dune fields of various sizes and origins are common landforms along many coasts. ... A collection of dunes is called a dune belt or dune field. A large dune field is called an erg. ... An erg covers at least 48 square miles. A large erg can cover tens of thousands of square miles. ... Bonäsheden, Sweden's largest continuous dune field, situated in the county of Dalarna, central Sweden ... dune field(also Landform) ... so, better also make Tag:landform=dune_field instead of your Tag:landform=dune_sea ? --Henke54 (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
None of these tags are 'mine' nor 'yours', they are simply ideas that can be discussed, rejected, accepted or left for further thought. I still prefer 'erg' if it can be applied to any area - no size limitation. Dune field or sea does not worry me other than the thought of large flat areas between the dunes .. erg would accept them but dune field/sea might not? Warin61 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
If it is your 'desire' to go in 'detail', "large flat areas between the dunes" is called slacks -> ... The valley or trough between dunes is called a slack ... dune slack (also Landform) ... Dune slacks appear as flat valleys in the dune system, usually rich in species and associated with other wetland habitats. ... But there are sometimes mappers who do not want to 'go in detail', and maybe want to map a 'whole area' with Tag:landform=dune_field ? --Henke54 (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
In the first instance I am with the less detail people - include them in the overall tag. If more detail is desired then I'd encourage individual dune crests to be mapped as ways with the tag landform=dune, personally I have done this for some significant dunes at the start of a large number of dunes. I should do one of two more in that area. Warin61 (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

sport descriptions

Can you look at ? It would be nice to decide on one of this two styles Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)