Talk:Tag:tower:type=hose

name of this value

I think the value was chosen a bit unfortunate, as the tower is not a hose. For example, hose_drying would be easier to understand and in line with other tower:type values. --Polarbear w (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

But see Hose tower on Wikipedia – it seems to be a common phrase and is probably OK and understandable, although "hose_drying" would describe the purpose more precisely. And your argument would also apply to tower:type=communication (because a tower is neither a communication nor used directly for communication, but for mounting antennas for communication - but this would be too complicated to put into a single term). To keep it "simple stupid" is often a better way (the KISS principle) ... --Goodidea (talk) 05:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

wikipedia link

@Goodidea, why did you move the wikipedia link from the top to the bottom in this edit, and why do you call this an "Syntax and punctuation improvement" ? --Polarbear w (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Because another user once complained to me that Wikipedia links should not be part of a definition in the OSM wiki (they should be independent of a Wikipedia definition was his explanation, and that seems to be the case), but they should be in sections like "External links" or "See also “ ... I didn't mind if it was part of the definition – I would read it as “see also how it is defined on Wikipedia” –, but there's no big problem in moving it; it's still there ... And according to the wiki guidelines, the main term should be highlighted in bold, which is then better/easier without such a link. If you would prefer to have the link under “Description“, move it back (or duplicate it). I think it's not very important where it is ...

"Syntax and punctuation improvement" because it was mainly this ... --Goodidea (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)