Talk:ID/Controversial Decisions

Remove solved ones

I propose to remove ones that were solved from the article, if issue is fixed then complaining about it seems to not be very useful and just makes atmosphere worse Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I am in favour of keeping them but marking them as resolved. It makes it easier to understand for new members of the OSM project why their is some friction between the iD maintainers and parts of the OSM community. --Nakaner (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I see what you mean Mateusz, but I favour keeping them and wording them in a positive (or neutral) manner to show that ID do in fact listen and act on complaints when they can. Jnicho02 (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Why deprecating amenity=scrapyard is clearly wrong?

It is listed as an issue and I have no idea why it is wrong. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I came from https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=797453. It's clearly wrong to mix up amenity=* and landuse=*, and using the latter on non-areas. I would agree if they wanted to push amenity=recycling. -- Kovposch (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Landuse on nodes is clearly OK (though it is always beneficial to remap it as an area) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:55, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I mean that's not the usual intention, and only a rough area is expected for landuse=*. This is over-extending. -- Kovposch (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, you can map scrapyard (and shops and museums and so on) as an area 13:09, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kovposch: "It's clearly wrong to mix up amenity=* and landuse=*" - why? We have landuse=education (a bit pointless but noone calls for deprecation), often tagged with amenity=school). landuse=commercial can be tagged on the same object as say amenity=boat_storage, amenity=driving_school, landuse=retail with amenity=fuel and so on. Why it is problem here? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

what is source of crossing=marked

@Westnordost: "The tagging of crossing=marked is based on the proposal Proposed_features/Unambiguous_crossings." added in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=ID/Controversial_Decisions&curid=237127&diff=2023498&oldid=2018225 seems a bit weird to me.

Note that iD introduced crossing=marked in 2018, started "upgrading" crossing=zebra to crossing=marked on 13th March 2019 (what was later reverted) and proposal was created on 21th March 2019. Maybe it was supposed to be linking to a different proposal, for just crossing=marked ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/crossing%3Dmarked&action=history )? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Why "barrier=entrance changed into entrance=yes" is problematic?

In this case I see no logic behind this complaint Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed this Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is quite clear from the description at Tag:barrier=entrance: they are quite different things. barrier=entrance is for openings in barriers; entrance=yes is for entrances to buildings and the like. —M!dgard (talk) 22:22, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Is it problematic enough for anyone to create issue at https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In the past, my issues like that were never listened to. Now I don't have a GitHub account any more. —M!dgard (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

is amenity=dancing_school deprecation actually controversial?

Is amenity=dancing_school deprecation controversial enough for someone to comment in https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues/373 ? Or is it actually not clearly controversial? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

4th format for vehicle services "introduced"

Is it now, after some time, actually controversial?

Has anyone tried to deprecate it or remove or is it not a big problem after all?

Is it problematic enough for anyone to create issue at https://github.com/openstreetmap/id-tagging-schema/issues ? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Tyr just created an issue for it, maybe in response to your question. The tagging scheme's inclusion in this article probably shouldn't hinge on the existence of that issue, which uses the article as a rationale. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Recently, there has actually been quite a shift in the other direction, towards service:vehicle:*=*, but I don't know the circumstances surrounding the change. [1] Ohsome Dashboard indicates that the change took place in Poland and Sweden simultaneously, with the majority of changes in Greater Poland on November 10, 2021. – Minh Nguyễn ^💬 18:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)