There are those who;
think the proposal process it the only way to create wiki pages.
there are those who degenerate wiki pages with few uses, to the extent
of editing those wiki pages to discourage use.
'Any tags you like' is one mantra ... but documenting them in the wiki
and leaving them to evolve looks to beyond some.
On 19/2/20 5:33 pm, Rory McCann wrote:
I don't know what your experience with the OSM wiki is, but I've
created new wiki pages for new tags, without bothering with proposal
pages. When has anyone told you that you need to do that? Did someone
write that down somewhere? Maybe that should be corrected. Do you have
links to where you saw that "rule"?
To anyone reading this who is unsure, please feel free to edit the
wiki. 🙂 We don't have this silly rules requiring proposal pages (as
many have pointed out).
(I also don't like making the wiki hard to edit for non technical
people. Think of the diversity concerns! 🙂)
On 19 February 2020 00:14:21 CET, Yuri Astrakhan
<yuriastrak...@gmail.com> wrote:
It is very strange that we, on one hand, allow anyone to create
any kind of tags (just type it in), and on the other we create so
many hurdles to document it (we refuse to allow a wiki page about
an item, but instead demand that each key page go through a
proposals process, approve it, etc). I believe this is a
ridiculous situation solvable with the data items. If I, the
editor, create a new tag, I should have a way to type in a short
textual description (one/two sentences) explaining what that tag
is. Without knowing how to create wiki pages or data item pages
or using the right templates, or even knowing which fields to fill
out where. Data items allow for that.
When a data item is created automatically, it makes the process of
adding such documentation very straightforward -- e.g. if one uses
iD editor, they simply expand the (i) button next to the tag,
click edit, and type in the description.
Moreover, it should be possible to do so directly from iD, without
going to another page. The eventual goal is to make it simple to
add such descriptions __without__ leaving the current editing tool
(iD/JOSM/...) and without visiting the wiki. These tools will be
able to view other metadata as well -- e.g. if this tag should be
usable on a way/node in a consistent way, regardless of the
language of the user.
On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 5:54 PM Andrew Hain
<andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk <mailto:andrewhain...@hotmail.co.uk>>
wrote:
I strongly disagree.
It is perfectly useful to document the existence of tags in
the database with data items. For example one was created for
the key sub_sea:type
[https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q4506] and it has
been possible to add this it is a discardable tag that the
main OSM editors remove when editing. While it is possible in
principle to add a long form tag documentation page, and
indeed the presence of the data item is a record that one may
be worth writing, it needs a different set of skills to
research its content. As such the data item and others like it
are useful on their own.
--
Andrew
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com
<mailto:joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com>>
*Sent:* 18 February 2020 17:28
*To:* osm <talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>>
*Subject:* [OSM-talk] Creation of "Data Items" by bot for
undocumented tags
Data Items should not be created by bot for undocumented tags.
According to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_items#Item_Creation_Process
the Data Items (aka "Wikibase" or "Wiki Data items") are
automatically
created by a bot, even before a tag is documented, if a tag has a
certain standard format and more than 10 uses in the database.
The data item is created in this case with the text "‎Created
a new
Item: Auto-updating from Wiki pages" - e.g.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Item:Q19947&action=history
This is confusing to users. For example, Item:Q19947 above,
"landuse=research" was created before there was a wiki page. Then
yesterday a user documented the tag with a page, but did not
understand why there was already a data item:
"Wikibase entry: evidence for preceding deletion? I've just
created
landuse=research, but the data item
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Item:Q19947&action=history
was already existing in December '19. How was the data item then
created?"
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Wiki=#Wikibase_entry:_evidence_for_preceding_deletion.3F
Besided the potential confusion caused by creating these items by
bots, I think it is a bad idea to encourage wiki users to start
editing these data items without first creating an actual
human-readable wiki page to document the tag.
In theory, the "Data Items" can be useful if they properly
document
how tags are used, in a way that is easier for computers to
handle,
but this only works if the data is maintained and updated.
Creating a new wiki page (by human) will alert other users via
"Special:Recent" and "Special:NewPages", while the stream of items
created by bots is too much for humans to maintain, and the
page names
are too obscure (Item: Q19947 is meaningless) to be scanned by
humans.
Therefore, I propose that Yurikbot be changed to only add new data
items for documented tags which already have a wiki page in at
least
one language. I do not see a benefit to creating date items for
undocumented tags.
Joseph Eisenberg
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
