> "accepted and historic method of documenting new tags." > "No matter how little used this is the accepted method"
Is there evidence or documentation that the accepted and historic method of documenting new, unused or little-used tags is to create a Tag:key=value page, without discussion first? I'm new here, but it looks like back in 2007 to 2008 tags were discussed and then voted upon and added to Map Features quite frequently; there were many newly approved tags, before "Any tags you like" was written - perhaps the later page was a reaction against the developing proposal process? > "The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the > probability of being cast as 'abandoned'." Using the proposal namespace should not force the original page author to do anything else in the Proposal process. Most proposed tags are never discussed on this list, and never move past "draft" status. But at some point the tag is clearly abandoned, and it's useful to mark it as such: the first user stops adding new features, and no more are added for several years. That's part of the benefit of keeping new tags in Proposal spaces: it makes it clear that they are not yet "in use" or "de facto" tags, and may well no longer be actively used by current mappers. (I don't think such abandoned tag proposal pages should be deleted, as long as the tag is still in the database, but the status change is helpful.) The alternative of putting a new tag page in user namespace could also be helpful for tags used by one person, if the user doesn't want to discuss things or have the page changed by others. Wiki editors will not feel the need to change the page by adding mentions of other tags, problems with the tag, alternatives, etc, if it's in a personal User space. On 8/15/19, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 15/08/19 12:18, Joseph Eisenberg wrote: >> [Posted to Talk + Tagging]: >> >> Currently the section "Non proposed features" in the OSM wiki page >> "Proposal_process" mentions that new tags should not be added to >> "Map_Features" without discussion. Some users also believe that new >> tags should not be documented under the feature wiki space with >> "Key:New_feature" or "Tag:key=value" pages, but should instead be >> documented in a User:username/ namespace or the Proposed_features/ >> namespace. >> >> In contrast, the current text of the wiki page "Any tags you like >> suggests creating a new tag for bird nests (as an example) with >> Key:endangered_nest=Siberian_flying_squirrel - besides suggesting >> using non-standard capitalization in the value, this suggests creating >> a new Key: / Tag: page directly, > > This has been the method for a very long time. > >> rather than using User:username/ or >> Proposed_features/. > > This is a new method that some think is better. > >> >> Is this a good idea? Occasionally new wiki pages are created in these >> standard spaces for tags with only a few uses or no uses in the >> database. >> >> I would encourage mappers not to create new feature pages for tags >> which are not yet in use, or have only been used a handful of times by >> one mapper. Instead, it would be good to clarify that the >> Proposed_features/ namespace can be used even if the user has no >> interest in continuing the proposal process. I though that new feature >> pages should be created to document "in use" tags that have been used >> by more than a handful of different mappers in more than a handful of >> places. >> >> Thoughts? > > Past practice has been to simple document what you have tagged as a new wiki > page. Simple, easy and accessible by all. No matter how little used this is > the accepted method and has neen in use for a long time. > > Placing it as a proposal and then not proceeding with it sees it being down > graded to 'abandoned'. These may be harder to find. > > Placing it in User:username/ > humm .. will that show up if I search for the key/value? > > ------------------------- > > I am against depreciation the accepted and historic method of documenting > new tags. > I would need convincing that the other methods are 'better'. > The ideal of forcing a proposal ... does not fly with me due to the > probability of being cast as 'abandoned'. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
