Hello all,
thanks for all your replies and input. It is however a little
frustrating indeed that all this only happens after the discussion
period - which is not the first time with my proposals. I think rather
than voting against, you should abstain from the vote, if you're only
coming out with your opinion now, because it was announced here and on
the weeklyOSM.
As so many things, yes, the settlement and site_type group of tags is a
mess. I tried to tidy up the settlement and related tags before I
started my proposal, though. And yes, we do have two different uses for
settlement_type, as I have laid out on the page
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:settlement_type>. I would
propose that where it is not used in an archaeological sense, that the
few cases (related to the earthquake in Haiti maybe?) be changed to
settlement:origin=planned/ spontaneous/ unspecified or something like that.
I chose settlement_type as a parallel use to fortification_type which
was established long before I started mapping heritage in Ireland afaik,
so I was only trying my best to follow an established pattern.
The mess with defensive_settlement=crannog is my fault - I had created a
preset for JOSM and forgotten to adapt it after retracting that
proposal. I've cleaned up that mess now. I meant to wait until this
proposal was approved, in case it got rejected.
If anyone wants to start a proposal for site_type, please be my guest.
Cheers,
Anne
On 07/10/2022 13:07, martianfreeloader wrote:
Being practical: Just use the settlement_type=crannog tag.
I'm totally fine this.
Being principal would be to approve the settlement_type=crannog.
I'm not fine with this for the reasons laid out.
On 07/10/2022 13:46, Peter Elderson wrote:
I am one of those who didn't bother to look what it's about.
I share the wish to tag crannogs as important historical structures
still existing today.
I share the criticism that _type does not mean anything. At the same
time I don't care if it is there or not; settlement=* also does not
say what kind of categorisation is used for the values. But the
settlement key ius already in (scarce) use for something else, with
values yes and no.
As for implicit approval of the higher tags, fine with me! They are
in actual use in a scheme, and for me that is good enough. If anyone
would start a separate vote for that, fine. If the current vote is
postponed till after, fine, it is the royal way I think, but I think
it is not necessary. I think we can be practical about this, not
principal. It's just not big enough.
Peter Elderson
Op vr 7 okt. 2022 om 13:10 schreef Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com
<mailto:ajt1...@gmail.com>>:
On 07/10/2022 11:27, Marc_marc wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Le 07.10.22 à 12:11, Martin Koppenhoefer a écrit :
>> who cares for "in use" or "approved"
>
> me :)
>
> approved that means that the subject has been discussed,
> that people have spent time on it, that there has been
> an opportunity to detect problems, to propose improvements
> it's quite different from an "in use", because a guy invented
>
Unfortunately discussion and "voting" by people who have only the
vaguest idea of what the thing being voted on is adds no value*.
There
is a place on the "B Ark" for them...
The fact that there was only one comment during the fortnight of
discussion means that people really don't know (or don't care) what
these are, and people who do know and care (such as the proposer)
should
probably "just map these". Whether that's via
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/defensive_settlement=crannog>
(which is slightly ahead in taginfo) or
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog
<https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/settlement_type=crannog>
matters
little; there are few of them in OSM right now, and the word
"crannog"
is characteristic enough, that they can fairly easily be remapped
into
some "better" archaeological scheme at some later stage.
What matters is getting them mapped, and getting from the 10s
currently
in OSM to the 1500 or so that apparently do or did exist**.
Best Regards,
Andy
* We still don't know what bicycle=designated means
https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230
<https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/use-of-bicycle-designated-vs-bicycle-yes-outside-of-germany/3230>
** According to wikipedia. I was surprised that there were
apparently
as many as 1200 in Ireland.
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
