Item talk:Q8001

prohibited

prohibited? I suggest to make the description sound more descriptive and less prescriptive. prohibited is not the correct term. Speaking about tags on elements, it is about what is commonly done, it is not prohibited to add a tag to an element for which it is uncommon and maybe currently unclear what is intended. —Dieterdreist (talk) 11:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree, it is highly misleading Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I opened Talk:Wiki#"is prohibited" (Q8001) is misleading @Dieterdreist: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this was just literal translation of standard infobox icons like that incorporate a prohibitory slash. How about "not recommended" or "discouraged" as a softer alternative? That would be closer to the language used in most of the wiki pages that express such limitations. "Uncommon" is probably too soft: for example, artwork_type=mural is documented as being allowed on areas, even this usage is very uncommon (only 3% of cases) and would only make sense for the small subset of murals painted on street surfaces. Whatever we change the label of this item to, the label of is applicable (Q8000) should use matching terminology. Also, the description could clarify the implication of a use being allowed or not allowed. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm also for renaming and would choose one of these: is unexpected - is not recommended - is not intended - is not used - is uncommon --Chris2map (talk) 06:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

We should not conflate recommendation/encouragement with usage/commonness. E.g. tags may be recommended/encouraged to not be used on areas despite them being used on areas.

I think the best labels would be "is encouraged" & "is discouraged". --Push-f (talk) 06:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be easier to work on the basis of usage instead of encouragement? I'm thinking of who is the one that recommends or discourages the use. In most cases it will be the one editor, and often it will be related to the current usage. --Chris2map (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The wiki attempts to document community consensus. Yes in most cases frequent usage of a tag on a certain element type indicates that this use is encouraged by the community but that does not have to be the case. For example the tag might not actually make sense for a specific element type but might have been added by an import/unauthorized mass edit or the usage of a tag on a certain element type might have been discouraged via a proposal. --Push-f (talk) 08:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"not recommended" or "discouraged" - this runs into problems with say landuse=cemetery where nodes are discouraged but valid. Maybe "not valid" would fit well? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes areas are preferred for landuse=cemetery but I don't think that means that using nodes is discouraged. I think if you don't have the time/boundary knowledge to map a cemetery as an area, you are in fact encouraged to map it as a node. I don't think that we need a dedicated value to represent that ... it should be clear that areas are always the ideal element type to map areas. --Push-f (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

"Invalid" is just as forceful as "prohibited" if no one wants to produce or consume invalid data. ;^) But I like that "valid" and "invalid" are clear-cut and stick to the mundane topic of data modeling instead of potentially being open to interpretation. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

How about changing from:

use on (nodes|ways|areas|relations) = encouraged/discouraged or valid/invalid

to

applies to (nodes|ways|areas|relations) = yes/no

? This directly correlates to the yes/no template parameters and nicely sidesteps the issue of what to call the case that a tag does not apply. --Push-f (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 Nice solution! I preferably support "applies to / doesn't apply to" or for second "valid on / invalid on". --Chris2map (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

"Yes" and "no" are too generic as item labels; these items would show up in other situations where they aren't expected. But "applies" and "does not apply" would address that problem, or perhaps more formally, "applicable" and "inapplicable". – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 20:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point. With that in mind I don't think applicable/inapplicable are good labels because the proper phrasing would be "the tag is applicable to (nodes/ways/areas/relations)". Having "use on nodes = applicable" would not be proper English. And "nodes = is applicable" would also be confusing. So I am starting to think in combination with "use on (nodes/ways/areas/relations)" the best labels for is applicable (Q8000) & is not applicable (Q8001) are "is designated" and "is undesignated". --Push-f (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Push-f: Oh, I agree that all the labels need to make sense together. My suggestion was specifically regarding the idea to also rename applies to nodes (P33) et al. as "applies to …"; we could even name it "applicability on …" to ensure correct grammar. "Designated" could work too, but there's already plenty of confusion about what access=designated means, so I'm hesitant to overload the term further. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 21:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't consider having "applies to … = is applicable / is not applicable". The labels can be read as "Does this tag/key apply to this element type?", "Yes it is applicable" or "No it is not applicable".

That does make sense. I went ahead and updated the English labels of these properties/items accordingly. --Push-f (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Template:ElementUsageLang is another source that should be updated, isn't it? --Chris2map (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it can be - but it is at least using weaker "should not be used" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)