Changeset: 40284897
see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned: (abandoned: prefix deprecates abandoned key over time)
Closed by staytuned
Tags
created_by | JOSM/1.5 (10327 de) |
---|
Discussion
-
Comment from aseerel4c26
please could you describe what and how you did in this changeset?
-
Comment from staytuned
If you're familiar with the wiki pages explaining these tags, the edit is self-explanatory:
abandoned=village is a very old tag back from the days when people have not thought about life-cycle prefixes; to not break backwards-compatibility and make people unhappy relying on this old scheme, I've added the new-style tag using the proper prefix-method as described and consented under
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lifecycle_prefix
And now, in the vein of "live and let live":
edit and let edit !
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
@staytuned You haven't explained why the tagging on these "abandoned villages" is correct (like I asked on
https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1001 ).
Generally speaking, the use of lifecycle keys makes sense, but you have to know that the object that you're changing is actually one of the things that you're changing the tag for, as I explained on https://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1001 the original tagging seems incorrect.
Was your edit purely mechanical and you did not checking at all, or did you do some checking and just got some wrong? -
Comment from staytuned
I've checked each of the place nodes individually, and they are indeed abandoned villages.
From a "ground truth" perspective they should only be in the database, if there are some remaints (or a board) observable. I have not physically visited those places and in that respect I have trusted those peers that originally entered data.
@SomeoneElse: You have not explained why you abuse user blocks, but I bet it makes you feel good in one way or the other. In any case: there's far better cases to use them, than to nag people seriously interested in the improvement of osm.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Are you _sure_ that Ravenspark Hospital (as mentioned in http://www.openstreetmap.org/user_blocks/1001 ) is really best described as an abandoned village? When do you think it ever was a village?
-
Comment from staytuned
.. and if nagging was not your intention, then, had you looked at the changeset comment, you would have figured out the intent of this changeset by yourself: It's all in there, with links to tag definitions in the wiki currently in use.
I repeat it here for stressed people among us:
see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:abandoned: (abandoned: prefix deprecates abandoned key over time)
-
Comment from staytuned
Ravenspark Hospital: Again, I was not physically there, so I have to trust the peer that entered this data and if he/she categorized it as a "village" than he/she will have had her/his reason to do so.
If you want to sort this categorization, it's wrong to ask me: You will have to ask person, who originally entered and categorized this.
-
Comment from staytuned
There are lot's of hospitals all over the world, that were founded secluded from populated places, with leisure-park like surroundings, some of them self-sustaining. I can see reasons, to speak of them as "village-like" structures, or even "villages" in cases they have evolved over time into such.
Again: To challenge the original categorization, research on ground, talking to locals might be useful. But this is something YOU are trying to do, my changeset was not about challenging the existing classifications for those places in the db, but to update the tagging scheme (as explained in the changeset comment).
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
The fact that someone changes something in the wiki does NOT give you carte blanche to apply that change worldwide. There are a couple of reasons for this; one is that we want to give data consumers some warning of impending changes and the other is that if you do what is essentially a mechanical edit (you've said yourself 'I have to trust the peer that entered this data and if he/she categorized it as a "village"') you'll get edge cases wrong. If the only thing you're looking at is the previous tag then you _are_ just doing a mechanical edit and should be following http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct . That doesn't mean that the edit won't happen - recently in the UK someone changed bridge_name to bridge:name, but discussed it beforehand and there was no real objection.
-
Comment from staytuned
If you think this is a problem, then revert the edit yourself and start a tiresome discussion on the mailing list. I won't be in the way of that.
I'm well aware of the "Automated edits code of conduct". But I have a very different view of whether it applies to the edit in question here. For one thing, I have not 'replaced' prior tags and for another thing, there is NO, I repeat NO, difference in semantic interpretation of "abandoned=village" and "abandoned:place=village".
As is consented upon in the wiki (for a _long_ time, by _many_ - it's not just a spurious edit, as you put it), the latter is a successor of the former. However, I agree with you in the point, that a single edit in the wiki does not grant "carte blanche" as you put it, to change data.
You're right, that this changeset will not 'rectify' wrong data - we've already discussed that, this was not a primary goal. But do you think, that not touching it (at all, regardless of reason), will leave a better chance of it being reviewed? After all, it has gotten very little attention now, as a by-product of your dissatisfaction with the changeset.
-
Comment from staytuned
Also, you only quote the parts that fit your argument, this is selective and not objective. I've checked a large amount of those places, if not all, to an extent larger than "just looking at the former tag". The former tag solely served as an information at which data to look at all.
But with abandonded features, aerial data and some web queries are often not enough, this is why I've rightfully written that you need to trust data classification of editors work lying past that of your own.
And if you have not recognized that this is a pattern to repeat in every kind of work, you should reconsider some of the fundamentals you base your arguments on: There is a lot of trust involved to make OSM happen. Not just on the pure mapping / tagging side. Of course, this is not to say, that it happens blindly.
-
Comment from aseerel4c26
@staytuned:
"You will have to ask person, who originally entered and categorized this." and "But this is something YOU are trying to do" -- you should do this instead of adding another likely wrong tag, since, indeed, I think "not touching it (at all, regardless of reason), will leave a better chance of it being reviewed".
By the way: there still was not given a clear description of what this mass edit exactly did. I would expect at least something like: <Via overpass I downloaded all (worldwide) objects which have the key abandoned=village and I added abandoned:place=village to all of them (keeping the old tag too). I did not check the correctness of the old tag>. This is a basic requirement and quite easy to fulfil. This way others, who view the edited objects, would know that you did not check the applicability of the old tag, but just added another one based on the old one.
Updating/changing tags via a mass edit may be the right thing to do in some cases. However, please discuss it (and how it is exactly done) with the community. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits_code_of_conduct are there for a reason.
Ways (1-20 of 26)
- 1
- 2
- 125593238, v4
- 166204042, v5
- 286709196, v3
- 286715386, v3
- 286715388, v3
- Ban Saint Jean (368613037), v2
- Caldeira (275540991), v2
- Emmerke (310090077), v3
- Hérapel (293264895), v2
- Kehlsburg (68459150), v8
- Neanderthalerkamp (297818833), v4
- Neuhof (222218462), v3
- Preensberg (220402565), v4
- Ravenspark (301577258), v4
- Stadtwüstung Blankenrode (34890245), v4
- Vieux Craonne (362968835), v3
- Villa Rincón Chico (213192864), v4
- Wahlsdorf (221896432), v2
- Wüstung Delm (38414343), v4
- Wüstung Denndorf (160048781), v3
- Abandoned houses (3337023361), v2
- 3242602420, v3
- Althausen (2681835054), v2
- Anzenhof (3465461095), v3
- Aschbach (2229649291), v3
- 2970740133, v2
- Aulenbach (1837851761), v4
- Ausweiler (1837851762), v3
- Barron (150960584), v5
- Biscarbó (305621589), v6
- Biscarri Vell (3476370595), v2
- Blechusen (941773713), v4
- Bohra (3111112610), v2
- Bonner (3676431425), v2
- Boschwitz (2929918901), v2
- Brandshause (3195558921), v3
- Breitenbusch (409168467), v3
- Breungenborn (1837851763), v3
- Broas (1530093497), v6
- Brooksby (30150590), v4
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 |