Proposal talk:Tree shrine

Why a new tag ?

Why a new attribute? Why not use historic=wayside shrine + natural=tree? --Reneman (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I would say for the same reason why historic=wayside_cross is not a combination of historic=wayside shrine and landmark=cross (or man_made=cross) since they can look very similar as well (see here and here for example). It's also possible that they do not look the same way (see here and here for example). I decided to go with a new attribute, because in my country a wayside shrine is something masoned (~98% of the time), while a tree shrine is an image hanging on or build into a tree (see here and here for example). --TBKMrt (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you read historic=wayside cross? You can use historic=wayside cross + natural=tree. --Reneman (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I read wayside_cross, what part are you talking about? No you can't use "historic=wayside cross + natural=tree" because it's not a cross. --TBKMrt (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not historic=wayside shrine + location=tree ? The wayside_shrine and wayside_cross used here as reasons for tree_shine are examples of a bad tagging schemata. They are too specific. They should be {{Tag|historic|shrine||, historic=cross + location=*. It would have solved all problems with shrines not along the ways, on trees, rocks. Yes, there are shrines located in rocks. Should we invent new tag for them historic=rock_shrine ? By the way, what chance is for such specific tags to be recognized by software ? Long-established historic=wayside_shrine is not even being displayed by osm-carto currently. Rafmar (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"Just because the node is tagged as wayside_shrine in combination with natural=tree does not mean that there has to be a tree shrine (could also be a regular wayside_shrine and a tree which are too close together to tag them effectively as two different nodes)." claim is weird, it is possible to have nodes 1 meter from each other Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Mailinglist

Have you read the Page Proposed features? This site is very new. When did you inform the mailing list? In what period could all participate in a discussion? You, on the day when the page was created, started the voting. This is very unusual. Or have I missed something? ^{Read in German.} --Reneman (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you up to? I have no idea what you are talking about. Yes, I read the page "Proposed features" (and "Creating a proposal" as well). I sent a mail to the provided adress on 2013-03-22 (yesterday) in the late eavening. I have no idea how long it could take for people to vote. I also have no idea if, or if yes: how I started the voting. I acted in good faith and did everything as good as I could. So if you want to tell me something specific, please tell me so. --TBKMrt (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Draft:
    Use the Template to create your proposal. Set the status to "Draft" and set the draftStartDate=* value. (YYYY-MM-DD).
    Place your proposal in the correct category.
    Once the feature is fully described on its page, move on to "Proposed" Status. 

Proposed:
    Send out an RFC (Request For Comments) to tagging@openstreetmap.org mailing list. 
        Subject Line: "Feature Proposal - RFC - (Feature Name)" 
    Set the status to "Proposed" and set the rfcStartDate=* value. (YYYY-MM-DD)
    Spend time with others discussing and modifying the proposal. 
        Please discuss each proposed feature on its own discussion page. 

Voting:
    At least two weeks after the RFC, and once problems brought up in discussion have been resolved by modifying the proposal, send out a (Request for Voting) to tagging@openstreetmap.org mailing list. 
        Subject Line: "Feature Proposal - Voting - (Feature Name)" 
    Set the status=Voting, voteStartDate=<today> and voteEndDate=<today +14>.
...

Please see hear: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2013-March/date.html
The last Mail is from "Mon Mar 18 11:30:49 UTC 2013".
Thank you for your valuable work. I want to help you. If you give the community no chance to discuss your work, and you will achieve no positive vote. ^{Read in German.} --Reneman (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I already sent a mail to that adress and I got a mail back ("Your mail to 'Tagging' [...] Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval. The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list") I did send a second mail to the same adress with the same result. Not sure if there is such a thing like an interwiki mail on the osm wiki. Is there anything else I can do?

--TBKMrt (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You must register your e-mail-adress on the tagginglist. http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

--Reneman (talk) 23:29, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I registered my mail adress, send the tagging info again. Let's see how it goes now.

--TBKMrt (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"Tree shrines" and the Historic Map

You are asking why we put tree shrines in the wayside shrine section of the map features page. It is simply as we felt it was the best place to put it. We do not want to mingle with the tagging discussion but give a possibility to render existing mapped shrines with an approporiate symbol before the (usually long if not forever lasting) process of reaching a positive voting will eventually have been finished.

Of course, I have a personal opinion. Googling around I find this term mostly in East Asian culture, Japan and less in the middle European or American Christian culture. As long as it is not really clearly defined and acccepted what a "tree shrine" denotes - and this should be acceptable worldwide as the term is used (seldom but used) in places far away from the Christian culture where your proposol seems to come from - I would prefer to use a more neutral tagging and stay with wayside shrines for the type of shrines you are discussing. Anyway the historic map tries to render what is tagged when a historic tagging is used sufficiently often (independent from a proposal process). --Zecke (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Is vote planned?

Is there an upcoming vote for this proposal or is it inactive and abandoned? (note that status of proposal is distinct of status of tag, it is possible to have abandoned/rejected proposal and a popular tag) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)