1) there was no consensus even among people who voted in that old proposal https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?oldid=589962
2) there was no consensus among OSM community at that time 3) proposal process is useful to get review of proposal and thorough nitpicking and criticism, and to make people aware about some concept. It can be sort of useful to gauge support for some ideas. It is not so useful at forcing people to do stuff. It is thoroughly useless at forcing people to deprecate basic tags. For example proposal deprecating highway=motorway would not result in dropping support for highway=motorway, it would result in dropping support for proposals deprecating things. 4) even if double tagging is unacceptable (I disagree), then this proposal failed to explain why amenity=hospital rather healthcare=hospital is being deprecated 5) "This, by the way, is one reason why certain companies refuse to use OSM data." 5a) [citation needed] it will make some programmers grumble a bit at most 5b) OSM data model is not unusually bad compared to many other curious or insane stuff in geoinformatics, geodatabases, databases, programming in general. Compared to some stuff I have seen it is working remarkably well. 5c) even if that claim is true, so what? 6) proposal vote getting results you dislike is not a valid reason to deprecate proposal process Nov 5, 2022, 23:42 by robin.bu...@gmx.de: > > There is no reason?! Sorry, but a consensus of the community that has clearly > been reached is clearly a reason. > > > > And if we now get to the point of just "throwing away" the consensus of 12 > years ago. We are leading the entire consensus process ad adsurdum. Because > then we won't need all this any more. Simply total anarchy. > This is also becoming a question: do we still need the proposal process at > all? Because the result from 12 years ago is also completely ignored by you. > And if you read the old proposal really hard, it was already decided to > deprecate in 2010, but no one has finally implemented it. > > > > In this community, we seem to be moving further and further into a system > where improvements to the system are massively prevented and established > double tagging is simply left in place instead of finally being cleaned up. > This, by the way, is one reason why certain companies refuse to use OSM data. > The data structure is unnecessarily inflated and complicated by such > duplications. If we don't stick to our own conventions and enforce consensus, > perhaps the consensus process should be abolished altogether? > > > > > Abschließend: Ich stelle garnicht in Frage, welches Tagging besser oder > schlechter ist. Das ist 2010 schon in einem Consensus von 42 zu 9. Ich stelle > dies garnicht zur Diskussion. Es ist schon entschieden worden. > > > > "Joseph Eisenberg" joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com – 5. November 2022 23:27 > > >> >> This debate has gone on for a long time. >> >> >> I do not have time to review every proposal when there have been so many >> lately and many did not appear to be well developed enough to come to a >> vote. >> >> >> I admit that I did not take the proposal seriously since it did not have any >> argument in favor of this change. Here is the entire rationale section: >> >> >> ">> With the 2010 proposal there is a double-tagging option for health >> facilities. Some of the editors once included it and then discarded it. This >> leads sometimes to confusion by mappers. >> >> >> To tidy up this situation, I propose the following changes. Likewise, >> editors, mappers and data users will then have a uniform consensus for >> further development." >> >> >> >> This statement could also be made in favor of deprecating the duplicate, >> less popular tags like healthcare=hospital, healthcare=dentist and instead >> encouraging use of the more common amenity=hospital, amenity=dentist. There >> was no argument or explanation for why the "new" (12 year old) tags under >> healthcare should be preferred to the "de facto" standards under the >> "amenity" key. >> >> >> >> >> In fact I would propose to deprecate healthcare=hospital since it is less >> common, and amenity=hospital is a good tag which is already used and >> interpreted by mappers and database users. >> >> >> During the start of the pandemic, I started to attempt deprecation of >> healthcare=pharmacy as a first step but abandoned the effort due to lack of >> time and energy: (>> >> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Deprecate_healthcare%3Dpharmacy>> >> ) >> >> >> - Joseph Eisenberg >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 3:00 PM Robin Burek <>> robin.bu...@gmx.de >> <javascript:void(0)>>> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> What kind of reversal of guilt is that? If someone does not participate in >>> the RFC. And it has been discussed both here and in the new forum. Even >>> constructive support, which I have received and not a little. >>> I have yet to talk to anyone who didn't think it was right to finally >>> enforce the 2010 consensus. So am I supposed to keep looking here until >>> someone eventually comes around? Sorry, but I cannot accept this attack >>> against me. If there have been major changes, I understand that >>> reminders/updates are sent. But not for this simple issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Brian M. Sperlongano" >>> zelonew...@gmail.com <javascript:void(0)>>>> – >>> 5. November 2022 22:50 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is the responsibility of the proposer to ensure that there is a >>>> consensus before moving to a vote, regardless of timelines. It seems to me >>>> that there has been a recent plague of proposals where proposal writers >>>> are tossing proposals into voting status without doing enough due >>>> diligence. If you are not getting much feedback on your proposal, sending >>>> a reminder is appropriate. It is never "too late" for someone to express >>>> an opinion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The lack of immediate opposition is not an indicator of consensus. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 5:42 PM Robin Burek <>>>> robin.bu...@gmx.de >>>> <https:/index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=robin.bu...@gmx.de>>>>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but this comes a bit too late. The RFC has been running for a >>>>> month! Contentwise only different "old" designations were added there. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is also not changed to a "new key". There is also nothing "new". Only >>>>> the old Healthcare Proposal from 2010 (!) is finally enforced (so much >>>>> for "without justification"). I think we should finally accept and >>>>> enforce the solutions that have been agreed upon. Or deprecate the old >>>>> consensus! But I have decided for the first. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Joseph Eisenberg" >>>>> joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com >>>>> <https:/index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>>>>> – >>>>> 5. November 2022 22:31 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This proposal attempts to deprecate very popular tags without >>>>>> justification. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The tags amenity=hospital, amenity=clinic and amenity=dentist are >>>>>> extremely well established and used by all kinds of maps and >>>>>> applications of Openstreetmap data. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> These features are also clearly amenities: they are an important service >>>>>> that you want to have nearby in your town, and all residents and >>>>>> visitors will need to know the location of the closest hospital or >>>>>> dentist to get medical services. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There is no benefit to changing to a different key, but there is a great >>>>>> difficulty in re-tagging and changing applications. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This proposal should be rejected. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Joseph Eisenberg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Nov 5, 2022 at 1:49 PM Robin Burek <>>>>>> robin.bu...@gmx.de >>>>>> <https://cloud.rbp.photography/index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=robin.bu...@gmx.de>>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Voting has started for Healthcare 1.1 - >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Healthcare_1.1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>>>>> <https://cloud.rbp.photography/index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=Tagging@openstreetmap.org> >>>>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Tagging mailing list >>>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>>>> <https:/index.php/apps/mail/mailto?to=Tagging@openstreetmap.org> >>>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org <javascript:void(0)> >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >>> >> >> >> >>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
