Proposal:Training
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Training | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Rejected (inactive) |
| Proposed by: | Guerda, Something B |
| Tagging: | amenity=training |
| Applies to: |  , 
|
| Definition: | A training establishment or facility |
| Statistics: |
|
| Draft started: | 2010-01-10 |
| RFC start: | 2022-09-26 |
| Vote start: | 2022-10-10 |
| Vote end: | 2022-10-24 |
Proposal
A facility that provides various additional or special training. It is shall not include the universities, colleges, and schools for children.
Rationale
The purpose of the proposal is grouping a large group of similar amenities under one tag.
LOADING TAG LIST...
Tagging
Further subdivision by type of training to be achieved through a new training=* tag:
- training=art
- training=aviation
- training=brewing
- training=circus
- training=cooking
- training=craft
- training=computer
- training=dance
- training=driving
- training=firearm
- training=language
- training=maritime
- training=music
- training=musical_theater
- training=sports & sport=*
- training=law_enforcement
- training=theater
- training=trade
- training=safety
- training=hairdresser
Note that multiple values of training=* are allowed, separated by semicolon.
Special cases
- If a single business is both amenity=prep_school and amenity=training, use amenity=training.
- Some amenity=music_school is targeted only for children that attended common school. amenity=training isn't replacement for it.
Features / Pages affected
- amenity=training - declare as approved
- training=* - declare as approved
- amenity=education_centre - declare as deprecated
- education=centre - declare as deprecated
- amenity=surf_school - declare as deprecated
- amenity=cooking_school - declare as deprecated
- amenity=sailing_school - declare as deprecated
- amenity=flight_school - declare as deprecated
- amenity=ski_school - declare as deprecated
- amenity=trade_school - declare as deprecated
- amenity=dancing_school - declare as deprecated
- amenity=dance_school - declare as deprecated
- sport=safety_training - declare as deprecated
Changelog
- Added "Proposal", "Rationale" and "Features / Pages affected" sections
Voting
Voting closed
Voting on this proposal has been closed.
It was rejected with 10 votes for, 14 votes against and 3 abstentions.
I approve this proposal. -- Something B (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I think the idea of the proposal is good but it is not well worked out. There reason and general idea are not explained. It is written as if the tag were just one more amenity tag, while in reality the aim is to regroup a whole category of tags under one new, more generic, tag. This becomes clear to the reader only if they read through the discussion page. Also, it is not clear what "additional" means in the Proposal section. --Martianfreeloader (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. Stated rationale is to deprecate bunch of things (Proposed_features/training#Rationale). I consider it as negative effect and as cost. It may be worth deprecating something because tag is confusing, broken, misleading, poorly defined, less popular and duplicating other tag and so on. But deprecation for the sake of deprecation is a bad idea. In other words, this proposal is missing rationale Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Also, for example driving school would now have two ways to tag it: (1) popular (2) approved. What is the benefit here? Maybe there is some, but it should be mentioned (is it allowing to tag things not taggable previously?) For deprecation fans (like myself): it is better to finish already started deprecations done with good reasons or target actually problematic tags. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. For the same reason as Mateusz. Diacritic (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. There is absolutely huge amount of work to basically rename one tag to another (getting consensus and updating wiki are actually trivial parts of that; having to modify all editors/ navigation programs/maps/validators etc, then getting all users to upgrade their software [sometimes embedded in unmodifiable GPS devices, or old devices which are too weak for running new versions of programs!], then finding & contacting & reeducating millions of mappers who are used to all taggings, then creating and validating bots to fix the discrepancies for years (as some people/programs will continue using old tags unaware of the changes), while at the same time having all tools having to support both old and new semantics, etc etc.)), so it practically should never be done, especially on such huge amount of tags at once. Advantages gained should heavily outweigh the effort needed, and "more nicely grouped" is very tiny gain compared to huge amount of effort needed. --mnalis (talk) 13:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- Tags with low usage (less than 300) are unlikely to be supported anywhere (with some exceptions, e.g. place=country). Status of popular tags, e.g amenity=driving_school, isn't affected. -- Something B (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- So no depreciation is ever done because it is too difficult? Just set up a process with a timetable and it will work. If you can't depreciate any tags, you'll get consistency errors in the tagging because the tags were defined a long time ago. A system that does not evolve dies. See Proposed features/Deprecated and unsupported status Gendy54 (talk)
- Tags with low usage (less than 300) are unlikely to be supported anywhere (with some exceptions, e.g. place=country). Status of popular tags, e.g amenity=driving_school, isn't affected. -- Something B (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I don't have comments --Emilius123 (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I have comments but abstain from voting on this proposal. I prefer education=*, to avoid the problems above at the same time. What happened to amenity=training_centre? Anyway the result of this shouldn't disapprove amenity=training. --- Kovposch (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I don't think that in the suggested fields "training" is really a common denominator. You will have e.g. performances in dance schools and so on. By forcing complex things into larger categories the real information gets blurred. I also agree with the statements by Mateusz and mnalis. --22:15, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The different types of "school" or "training" locations listed are quite different from each other and deserve to be top-level feature tags. Deprecating large numbers of tags is a large amount of work for no clear benefit in this case. --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. The idea of retagging the current list of amenity tags under "training" is great, but education for trades/skills like law enforcement or aviation is a lot more formal than most dancing and surfing schools, and grouping them under the same amenity=training tag may obscure this fact. --501ghost (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I also agree with Mateusz's assessment. --SafetyIng (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I personally think that all additional education can be specified in the amenity=training tag, indicating the category in the training=* key. This will make it much easier to handle various education amenities. --Grass-snake (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I would vote in favor for such a tag for uncommon training types, but like Mateusz Konieczny I don't see any use in deprecating such a large number of existing tags. --Mueschel (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I think the existing system is good already. Changing it is a lot of work and creates confusion for little benefit, in my opinion. --Jmarchon (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. there is no benefit in “grouping” features under a generic umbrella term as is training, these are not all similar. There are many possibilities to group features, and if there are so many tags that would be “deprecated” it is not the right approach. Some people assume we can change tagging at will, but it actually means a lot of effort, and if it ain’t broken better not change it. —Dieterdreist (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. By looking at taginfo, the current uses of training seem to show that is already established. --Stephankn (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. reason --KoiAndBlueBird (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2022 (UTC) We lose valuable info that way
- I approve this proposal. --EneaSuper (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Don’t think the proposal will pass the voting, but I agree nonetheless to a need for better classification--Lejun (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --FreeExec (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Jim Di (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --literan (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. I think amount of work should not stop us from structuring tags. For some time apps will have to support two variants: popular and approved, but now they also have to support two variants: popular and less (but more and more) popular. --Alexey.zakharenkov (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. (Means: i don't see a benefit.) --Dafadllyn (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. --Michi (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. I'm very much in favor of this tag and use it a ton myself, but I'm generally against the idea of a proposal for it that whole cloth depreciates the other commonly used tags. At least not when there's that many and their usage is so high. It's not like they can't co-exist until the community naturally moves over to the training tag either. I don't think most of tags that would be depreciated are analogous to training either. Like there's a huge difference in my mind between say a specific educational institution that specializes in teaching foreign languages and just a random place that teaches tourists basic Spanish. Or say a driving school and a local motorcycle rental shop that trains people the extreme basics of how to drive one. I guess it's the difference between "teaching" something and "training" someone in how to do something. I'd fully support a proposal that doesn't depreciate other tags though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. It will depreciate a few popular tags. --Maraf (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)