On 27/09/2015, Marc Gemis <marc.ge...@gmail.com> wrote: > My fear is that some overzealous mappers will start adding those tags to > all objects in their neighborhood, just to "protect' their area and scare > away newbies. > > Since we suppose that all data is mean to be correct and everybody makes > edits to improve the map, I do not see a good reason for such a tag.
To be honest I'm not a fan of the idea either, but it's comming back so regularly that I think we should treat it in some way. Bryan proved me wrong by saying that he (as an iD developer) would support some form of warning, and he makes the very interesting point that values should be standardised (this begs the question of what to do when an unknown values comes up, but hey). Standard names offer the opportunity to guide which type of warnings are good to have and not oversteping. And can link to help text that can try its best to explain rather than scare away. Picking up on Bryan's examples: * outdated_imagery should be self-explanatory, I've used the note tag for that a few times * border_dispute can link to the many ressources explaining how to handle these nicely * current_event is... the same as outdated_imagery ? unless a precise date is given ? * authoritative_data can suggest mapers to alert the authority that their data is crap ;) * i_know_the_place_better_than_you is notably absent Bryan also distinguished 'warning' (which just pop up a message but lets the user continue) from 'restriction' (which don't let the user edit until he removes the restriction tag). I think that 'restriction' goes too far, an editor warning should be enough for all cases (as long as it is visible enough). _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
