29 Jun 2019, 11:59 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > 2019-06-29, št, 11:58 Mateusz Konieczny rašė: > >> (2) I see significant benefit of natural=water + water=* >> > > This is your personal opinion. Opinion of OpenStreetMap community is > expressed by those who map - in the data. > All "I prefer tag Y over X" are "rule Z is good way to deciding which tag is better" is a personal opinion, so I am not sure why you are pointing this out. I even started from "I see (...)". 29 Jun 2019, 11:59 by tomasstrau...@gmail.com: > Opinion of OpenStreetMap community is expressed by those who map - in the > data. > See https://taghistory.raifer.tech/ <https://taghistory.raifer.tech/> https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/899988/60383077-c001ce00-9a6c-11e9-9aa8-ed43c7851a36.png <https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/899988/60383077-c001ce00-9a6c-11e9-9aa8-ed43c7851a36.png> for a quick check. (1) most of lead of landuse=reservoir for areas is a result of a bot edit, maybe an import (2) since 2016 water=reservoir is growing much faster than landuse=reservoir This quick check is a bit better than just checking total usage count, but obviously it is not worth much. It may be useful to investigate actual usage among mappers who are actually selecting tagging scheme used. > As water tagging is very prominent > This concern tagging details of body of water what is actually not prominent. > I already had to revert a number of such changes and > explain people to ignore such "advices" or switch to a better editor). > "had to revert" is untrue. Are you manually checking every single part of such edits? Otherwise you are making automated edits in violation of automatic edits code of conduct. It is also not too useful, most what you achieve is to confuse other mappers and likely scare away some of them. Please stop doing that.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
