Changeset: 105550460
added tags to moat
Closed by Friendly_Ghost
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (17833 en) |
---|---|
source | Mapbox Satellite |
Discussion
-
Comment from Tomas Straupis
Reverted. This is not the schema used in Lithuania.
-
Comment from Friendly_Ghost
Basins are areas designated for water retention/detention/infiltration. Moats are water bodies for defence of a fort. The meanings are very different and each has its own tagging scheme.
-
Comment from Tomas Straupis
Even if that would be the case, we would go for something like landuse=moat, or landuse=basin+basin=moat. We're not using the dupilcate nerds water schema with "all blue is natural=water".
-
Comment from Friendly_Ghost
water=* is not a duplicate, it's a replacement. This was introduced in the approved 2011 proposal for water details. Tags for basins and rivers are not uniformly tagged as natural=water at this moment, but for moats this is the only documented tagging scheme and as I said before, it's clearly a water body and not a basin.
Calling it "the duplicate nerds water schema" is rude and unnecessarily dismissive, which is a poor attitude to have as an OSM mapper.
Retagging a moat as a basin means that you're removing the meaning, which is sabotage of data and is the sign of an edit war.
You should stop gatekeeping your tagging scheme yesterday, because you're opposing the international OSM community and vandalising data.
-
Comment from woodpeck
Tomas, could you point out how the Lithuanian community makes decisions like whether to "go for something like landuse=moat, or landuse=basin+basin=moat"?
-
Comment from Friendly_Ghost
I would like to mention that these tags aren't in use and that I intended to make a positive impact to map this feature as a moat with the existing and documented tagging scheme.
-
Comment from Tomas Straupis
1. Intruder ghost, stop LYING. The mentioned decision WAS NOT to replace/deprecate the original water schema. That was mentioned a number of times by people who have actually voted.
2. Tags used for water (or any other decision) are discussed/decided in talk-lt (people who map 90% of Lithuania are from Vilnius, so initial discussion could be in a pub or virtual meeting during pandemic).
3. Adding gazzillion of different taggings as a primary tag (which in case of your schema is water=*) is only degrading the quality of data. Very few would actually need a difference between basin and moat so solution is to add that info (if you really need it) in a separate tag without damaging current good tagging.
4. You're not local, you have not been on the spot, so you're impotent to add anything of value here. -
Comment from Tomas Straupis
NOTE: There is currently NO WAY to know the opinion of international community. Few tagging list people are miniscule/unimportant/unrepresentative group. Even usage statistics can no longer be trusted because some people like Brian Sperlongano are organising criminal like deceptive world wide mass retagging of valid tags without consulting local communities.
-
Comment from Friendly_Ghost
Dear Tomas Straupis,
1. Here follows a link to the documentation: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Water_details#Deprecation I am happy to inform you that 10 years after approval, broad renderer support for water details has been achieved, which means that legacy tagging schemes can be safely deprecated.
2. As woodpeck asked before, could you point out how the Lithuanian community made the decision to tag moats in a certain way? The tags you mentioned earlier are not in use, and I would be glad to know which tagging scheme for moats the Lithuanian community has agreed upon.
3. I should not have to tell you that water detail tagging has been a part of OSM for much longer than I have been. Furthermore, the fact that this water body is a moat is of interest to historians, which makes tagging it as a moat valuable information.
4. I know some military history and my country has a very high density of moats. That should qualify me to identify moats at forts. In our discussion here I also noticed that we seem to be in agreement that this body of water is in fact a moat, which makes me wonder why you removed the related tag.
I would like to remind you friendly that no communities within OSM are unimportant and that Brian Sperlongano's mass retagging is well-documented, has been conducted only after local community approval and so far does not concern any moats, which by the way are a rare sight in the USA.
I ask you to stop gatekeeping, acting hostile and vandalising the map.
Regards,
Intruder Ghost
-
Comment from Tomas Straupis
1. Stop LYING or you have problems with text comprehension? Original water schema was NEVER deprecated! There was NEVER a vote to deprecate it!
2. Even if there was: tagging litst/wiki voting means NOTHING. It has never been as is not an authoritative source ("tag as you like").
3. Brian Sperlongano has been caught doing mass retagging WITHOUT asking local communities (mainly by abusing/lying to newbies who believe the fairy tail of "deprecation/better schema") after writing on another wiki page that such retagings should not be done. So that is an example of highly immoral behaviour of Brian Sperlongano.
4. Casper, STOP telling my what to do, and I will not tell you where to go. You're in no position to teach. -
Comment from GoodClover
I think discussion of country-wide tagging should take place with some of those community members here, no? Rather than just you, Tomas.
Can you link to cases of when Brian has not consulted local communities? I'm yet to see proof of this happening.
-
Comment from GoodClover
(I don't mean literally here in this changeset, it'd be best to move to another communication medium)
-
Comment from Tomas Straupis
I have reverted riverbank damages in Lithuania, Martin Koppenhoefer has mentioned changes in Italy(?). Both had no prior consultation with local community but rather some attempts to LIE - f.e. explain that "I was fixing some errors" when simply moving one point here another there.
NOTE: This topic has been discussed million times on millions different medias. This started almost ten years ago and most people who have been active during that period (including me) are already bored of this discussion because it has never led to anything but anger. My point is that until the root is not fixed - until there is no way to make an authoritative decision (wiki/tagging list is not) - there is no way to solve this (ant other) problems. -
Comment from woodpeck
GoodClover, your comments are not helpful; I am pretty certain that rarely anybody making high-level tagging plans on the wiki and the tagging list has contacted small local communities like the Lithuanian one. Tomas is right in so far as that wiki votes and tagging list discussions are not binding for local communities to follow - even though it can of course happen that data consumers like rendering engines slowly follow "new" standards leading to those rejecting them getting a less nice map. The crucial question here is whether the Lithuanian community actually exists as a group and stands behind Tomas, in which case his rejection of FriendlyGhost's mapping would be ok, or whether this is essentially one stubborn person clamouring for souvereignity when nobody else really cares. Tomas, be careful what you wish for - any global mechanism for making authoritative tagging decisions will probably overrule a small community like yours 10 times out of 10. The current system allows everyone some leeway where they feel it is important and it works on the whole. This sometimes requires some compromise. When was the last time you changed your mind on something regarding OSM tagging? Are you only this stubborn if someone from outside of Lithuania tags something you don't like, or do Lithuanian users get the same "I have been here for over 10 years, I know what is right and you know nothing" treatment?
-
Comment from Tomas Straupis
This is really a bad medium for this discussion. I will simply explain that this particular water schema dispute can easily be solved by technical means (this particular case is not something crucial), the main problem as I see it is that it is possible for uneducated inexperienced newby (less than year experience no Carto/GIS knowledge for the introducer of new water schema) users to actually introduce such a pointless change in tagging. I would be totally fine to comply with expert commission (experts in GIS/Carto/IT, not coding nerds) because I believe they would not be pushing pointless changes for prominent schemas, because that is one of the golden rules of IT in general. Motivation of new water schema "to write SQL easier" is totally stupid for so widely used objects, experts would never ever do that.
-
Comment from Tomas Straupis
And for "current system works on the whole". It LOOKS like its working while it is changing some meaningless stuff like how to tag the colour of gates in suburbian football pitches. Let them try changing tagging for something really used/useful and widespread and see how it will work "on the whole" :-)
But again, while decision making/governance is the real problem here, not water schema or local community decision process, noone wants to do any movements on this front. And I guess there IS nobody who would have an authority to do such a movement... Steve C.? :-)
Ways (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |