Talk:Tag status

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

statuslink and proposed status

I think statuslink should be stated mandatory for proposed status as well. Any feature can't actually get this status if a related proposal isn't available, can you? Fanfouer (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Some proposals were made directly in the standard wiki pages rather than using the proposal format, so these may still be a proposal but do not have a separate proposal page. Also, the text currently states that statuslink "should be included for all tags and keys which had a proposal", so I think it's clear enough? --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure publishing a formal page for a proposed key outside of a proposal is a desirable way to promote new tagging in the future. Agree with you for past proposals which only involve a key/value page. Fanfouer (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes people document in use tags that were used just 5 times. Which status - if not "proposed" - would fit? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
It would seem to me that "in use" is defined exactly for that (among other things)? As documented in "Some in use tags may be only used in one country or by a small number of mappers"? Also see community forum discussion here. It seems quite unnatural to me to use "proposed" for tags which were never proposed, but result of ATYL instead. --mnalis (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Jeisenbe that if a tag has very few uses, the status can be "proposed" even if there was no formal proposal. This will help avoid situations where one user uses a tag 10 times, sets up a page on the Wiki and gives "in use". This could be imposing their tagging on others without a formal proposal. "Proposed" doesn't have to mean "formally proposed in the Proposal: namespace". maro21 21:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
There is wider discussion at [https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wiki-status-of-tags-proposed-or-in-use-for-low-usage-atyl/108799 community forum, please consider contributing your opinions there --mnalis (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

New status: "import"?

I would like to add a new status: "import" for tags that were used in a large import, but are no longer commonly being added. These tags often have high numbers in the database but have not been accepted by the community and rarely are being used by mappers (in some cases they have never been added, except by the import), so they should not have the status "in use", and they were never proposed in most cases.

Using "import" as the status would make it clear that these tags are not "de facto", "in use" or "approved", and would be more specific and clear than "unspecified". --Jeisenbe (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I like the idea, maybe there could even be room for 2 new values: tags introduced by an import and not or rarely adopted for manual mapping, and tags that had already been in use (maybe scarcely) but significant (most?) usage stems from imports. Or maybe a flag that states: significant amount of usage is from imports. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I was not intending this status to be a "mark of shame", but rather informative. Certainly this information should also be mentioned in the main text of each Tag: or Key: wiki page, but it's nice to have a quick and simple way to show how a tag got into the database. Some imported tags like gnis:feature_id=* are useful to keep the Openstreetmap database object directly linked to an object in an external database. That's why I am not suggesting the use of "deprecated" or "obsolete". The main reason to mark them is so that mappers and database users will understand where the tag came from.
I was also thinking about tags like "object:postcode=*" - this tag is only used in Germany on highway=street_lamp features which appear to have been imported mostly in 2015: https://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/object:postcode/ . Though the usage numbers are moderately high, it is helpful to know that this tags are not often being used, except for the imported features. the tag was added by a mechanical edit, not imported: see below
If a tag which was first used in an imported then becomes popular and used frequently by mappers for new or updated features, it should change to "in use" or even "de facto", just like a "draft" or "proposed" tag can change status due to usage over time. --Jeisenbe (talk) 23:22, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
It turns out that object:postcode=* was added by a mechanic edit, not by an import. Perhaps that needs a different status? "mechanical edit"? --Jeisenbe (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Neither did I intend this as mark of shame. I believe it is useful information for mappers to know whether a tag is used in high numbers because everybody uses it, or whether it is because a fee people introduced it through an import, and eventually the numbers are misleading and the tag is neither accepted nor used by mappers. —Dieterdreist (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Import status vs. external id

If mappers manually add a particular tag by hand, such as with openbenches:id=*, I feel the tag shouldn't be labelled with the "import" status. This makes the classification less useful by mixing very different situations (manually added links to an external database, automatically imported links to an external database, other automatically imported tags). The fact that it's an external ID can, at least in cases like this, already be understood by the presence of an URL pattern parameter. --Tordanik 17:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Re: openbenches:id - my understanding is that you find this by searching in the openbenches dataset, right? "Use the ID number (from the URL slug) on the bench's page at https://openbenches.org as an OSM-Tag." So the value of this key is always imported from the database shown at opensbenches.org
Most imports require some manual input, and many are done entirely "by hand". But if the information is only available by referencing an external database (as is almost always the case with an External Reference or External ID), then it is an imported tag: it cannot be added or verified by surveying the feature. While it's true that the URL pattern of the value would suggest that it was imported from an external data set, some URLs are actually listed on signs at a feature: the value of a key like website=* would not always be imported, but could be confirmed by visiting a shop or business in person and seeing the website on the window or door sign or business cards.
As mentioned on the mailing list, this status is not meant to be a "mark of shame", but rather informative, so that database users will know that this information is linked with or available in an external data set, and so that mappers will know that these tags can be added by referencing an external data set, not by survey. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Manually browsing an external database to look for an ID is the closest equivalent of a survey for this kind of tag. And it's a substantially different process from importing external IDs. After all, "import" has a relatively established meaning in OSM that does not include adding a link to another site. For example, adding Wikipedia links does not require you to follow the rules for imports (which it would if doing so was considered an import).
I understand that it's not meant as a "mark of shame", but I disagree that using the status generously makes the wiki more informative. Surely, tags referencing external databases can be proposed, approved, in use etc.? Where do we store this information now? --Tordanik 17:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Re: tags referencing external databases can be proposed, approved... - Do you have any examples of these? I agree that Wikipedia/Wikidata links are probably accepted by community consensus. But are there any other external reference ids which are even "proposed" status? Please provide an example. If they exist, I would be happy to mark the status as "draft/proposed/rejected/approved" as appropriate. The status "import" is intended for tags that did not go through the proposal process. --Jeisenbe (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

unspecified, undefined, unknown - is it ever valid?

Can someone give an example of case where either unspecified or undefined or unknown should be used as status value? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

You don't provide such value manually - it's only when nobody has given any other value. maro21 17:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but why you would use it instead of leaving status unfilled? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that "undefined" doesn't really make sense. In theory "unknown" could really mean "I don't know", though it's not really an improvement over leaving the field blank. --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Translation into other languages

IMHO it would be important to translate the page in several languages! Has anyone muse? -- regards, Chris2map (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

the difference between "de facto" and "in use"

  1. What is the difference between "de facto" and "in use"?
  2. How many uses must a tag have in order to be considered de facto? What is the minimum?
  3. Is an OSM Carto icon enough to change status to de facto?
  4. What is "widespread use"?
  5. Should the "de facto" tag be used all over the world? What if a tag is used one million times but only in one country?
  6. If a tag has an OSM Carto rendering, preset in iD and JOSM, can it be marked as "de facto"? maro21 22:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
    • "If a tag has an OSM Carto rendering, preset in iD and JOSM, can it be marked as "de facto"" - definitely.
    • "Should the "de facto" tag be used all over the world? What if a tag is used one million times but only in one country?" - depends a bit on tag. Is it something present only in that country? Is it mapped elsewhere?
    • "Is an OSM Carto icon enough to change status to de facto?" - not always, right now shop=dhhdjasjhdasuhudusdahusdahuas tag would be still displayed with a generic dot icon.
    • "How many uses must a tag have in order to be considered de facto? What is the minimum?" - sadly it depends. Compare threshold that would be required for capital=yes and building=house/house=detached. And it depends on other factors. 1 million manually added objects vs 1 million imported objects, competing tagging schemes
    • So overall answer is sadly "it depends"
    • Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:53, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Tag status: obsolete or obsoleted

In this page I see the status spelling like "obsolete", but at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposal_process I see it like "obsoleted".

What should be the right status? AngocA (talk) 01:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposals status and tag status is a bit distinct. Though ideally such difference would be eliminated as pointless. Not sure which should be changed Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I've only just become fully aware of this fact. I think the obsolete status for the tags would be easier to change due to less usage. But personally, I like obsoleted less, especially not for tags. For me, obsolete is more understandable and fits a description of the (final) state of a tag better. - The current use of the status for tags is also not clear and consistent (the distinction from deprecated), at least that's how it appears to me. Therefore, before we change the spelling, I would also consider whether it would not be even more welcome to do without this status for tags at all (and call those deprecated). I'm not asking for that, it's just a thought. --Chris2map (talk) 06:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The current use of the status for tags is also not clear and consistent (the distinction from deprecated), at least that's how it appears to me: The way I understand it, status=obsolete is included in status=deprecated - because tags with an obsolete status are also deprecated, but they've been removed from the databases some or long time ago. maro21 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"Map features" page contains deprecated or in use tags

As part of the text of this article, it says "Most are listed at Map Features", in the "Green" values section. However, that page, in English as well as in other languages, it lists many deprecated tags, in use or undefined.

Tags in which status should be listed in the Map Features page?

In fact, I completely agree that the Map Features page is one of the most important, but along the years it has included many entries that could not fit as de facto or approved. AngocA (talk) 04:37, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Map features should not list deprecated tags: either tag should be not listed there and preferred alternative should be listed or tag is incorrectly marked as deprecated. "undefined" is more obvious: ideally or tags would have status assigned, so just add one (maybe consult other people if unsure). Listing "in use" tags seems fine if of actually wide interest and not something extremely special. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Include a state chart

I have created a state chart for the different status. What do you think to include it in the page?

Tag status.svg

AngocA (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Draft, voting, post-vote, rejected, cancelled, abandoned is not status of a tag. It is status of a proposal. There are de facto tags with rejected proposal. Plenty of "in use" tags with abandoned or draft proposals. I think we have some deprecated approved tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I see it completely differently!
I will present my vision in some time, when I finish it.
But I can add that we mixed up the statuses of PROPOSALS with the statuses of TAGS, which are different. E.g., the fact that a tag is in use [in use / de facto] is independent of the proposal status [draft / abandoned / rejected / inactive]. And I agree with what Mateusz wrote. maro21 18:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

draft does not work for the template RelationDescription

The template RelationDescription does not accept a status draft, while proposed works fine. Is this an issue with the template or is the draft status no longer in use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RubenKelevra (talk • contribs) 08:46, 19 October 2022

Status draft has been discarded for feature descriptions (keys, tags, relations) and is only used for proposals. See Template:StatusLang&oldid=2387516 and Talk:Wiki#Deprecate_status=draft? (permalink) --Chris2map (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal statuses are different! Drop draft, rejected and abandoned statuses for tags

"Draft" status has been removed, let's do the same with rejected and abandoned. See Talk:Wiki#drop_status=rejected

These are statuses of proposals, not tags. Proposal statuses are different: abandoned, cancelled, draft, inactive, obsoleted, proposed, rejected and voting (Category:Proposals_by_status). Let's not mix them up. A very good example of how tag status is unequal to proposal status: Proposal:Key:school=entrance and Tag:school=entrance - this proposal is approved but the tag is deprecated because the voting was on deprecating it and it was approved. maro21 19:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree! --Chris2map (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Resolved: Statuses removed. maro21 19:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In case we want to remove some more status sometime in the future.... Here is a list of pages that would need to be edited. maro21 20:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

deprecated or obsolete

I notice that the assignment of obsolete and deprecated is handled differently. Some change the status from deprecated to obsolete when a tag is no longer in the database, including myself recently. But there is also the undo back to deprecated. What are the opinions on this? Should a deprecated tag always remain deprecated or is it then obsolete if it no longer occurs at all? --Chris2map (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was me who was changing sometimes 'deprecated' to 'obsolete' to mark that the tag is not used. But I only do this for tags that have not been used for a long time (at least two years), not ones that recur frequently [e.g. building=yesq, building=building]. The way I understand it, status=obsolete is included in status=deprecated - because tags with an obsolete status are also deprecated, but they've been removed from the databases some or long time ago. maro21 17:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Most documented tags with zero usage has been replaced, some come from proposals, some from imports. I think that "obsolete" status is not needed as all. -- Something B (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Discardable on entities, but usable on changesets

Currently, created_by=*, imagery_used=* marked as "discardable", it implies that this tags are useless, but they are usable on changesets. Something B (talk) 08:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

But this Wiki and Taginfo show statistics for the main OSM database, where tags are on node, way and relation objects, not on changesets. And these keys on node, way and relation objects are discardable. Any keys can be used on changesets and there are no forbidden ones there. maro21 16:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I think this Wiki is also about changesets, and the "red" status for currently used tags (even if they are only used on changesets) is incorrect. -- Something B (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion it is confusing if changeset-only-keys are documented in the wiki the same way like map feature keys. In case of documenting them at least we should have and use a specific namespace, e.g. "ChangesetKey:" --Chris2map (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

For namespace proposal, see also Talk:Wiki#Documenting_changeset_tags_separately_from_element_tags --Chris2map (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tag_status&oldid=2667616"