The statistics reflect all areas, regardless of which editors were used to create them. I stand by them, as numbers do not lie. There was a 3:1 preference for water=reservoir during 2017 and 2018, two years prior to the change in iD preset. The data is open, and taginfo provides a very helpful REST API. Feel free to conduct your own statistical analysis.
If you are not willing to have this question put up for a proposal (where, as with any proposal, you are free to present your argument for all to consider), your arguments are in bad faith, and again, must be dismissed without consideration. Your desire to bypass our democratic process and upend community consensus for tagging you don't like is frankly insulting to the rest of us that work hard to achieve consensus in tagging. Why should we waste time debating you, if you aren't willing to accept the outcome of the community decision-making process? On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 9:43 AM Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com> wrote: > Brian, you're using statistics which DO NOT represent mappers preferences. > If you would use only JOSM created objects - then it would be close to > mappers preferences (as JOSM allows mappers to choose). > But you use iD created/adjusted objects and as it does not allow > showing your preference (drilling down into tags is only a theoretical > possibility) and even pushes you to overwrite other peoples > preferences you have to exclude iD tainted objects if you're trying to > get "community preference" from statistics. > > Therefore I would suggest starting with the core - arguments > advantages/disadvantages of both schemas. > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
