Talk:ID/Controversial Decisions/Archive 1
Why crossing=marked is controversial?
I came from crossing=zebra to ID/Controversial_Decisions#Changing_crossing=zebra_to_crossing=marked to read about controversy. And didn't find anything. What's going on here? --Victor.yarema (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Dieterdreist: Could you please back the sections you added with some links/references? Claims that someone acts against the community should be backed, e.g. using their comments on GitHub or the mailinglist. This applies to your sections about zebra crossings and "Not showing specifics of automatic tag transformations by default". --Nakaner (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
- I may do so, but not in this month unfortunately, I will be back in July. You (or anyone else) can add details in the meantime, if it is pressing and if you like, these aren't "my" sections, they are from all of us. Anyway, information to back up the claims are not hard to find --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Resolved: Seems solved now Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Not allowing users to enter exact coordinates of nodes : controversial decision or wish/"missing feature" ?
Jidanni is that a controversial decision ? imho it's only a wish or an "missing feature". Marc marc (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- They're not going to add it no matter what.[1] Jidanni (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Jidanni: Not adding no matter what is not a sign of controversiality. Entries to the page should provide references to either issues on the GitHub repository where more than one person brought up sensible and right reasons for the rejected request or links to mailing list/forum discussions where multiple people do not share the opinion of the iD developers and provide sensible and right reasons. As long as it is only a request by you lacking support by others, it is not controversial between the community and the iD maintainers. --Nakaner (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)SOLVED:
I just added some info on the OSM Community Index and how it has been improved so that we can specify the ordering. IMO this solves the complaint, so I marked the section 'SOLVED'. Is everyone happy with this format? Jnicho02 (talk) 09:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
autoremoval of building tag
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/5883 - iD silently autoremoves building tag, behavior is often interpreted as a deliberate vandalism (see say https://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=791371#p791371 ). iD issue WONTFIXed and locked. I am considering adding it here Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- To trigger this bug: create building=school and add amenity=school using iD interface - it will remove building=* Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- Heh. I agree that I would be surprised if, for example, a kindergarten building were de-buildingified, but on the wiki on 27 March 2016 "A kindergarten can be added as a node or an area" changed to "The campus of a should be drawn as an area tagged with amenity=kindergarten." which more-or-less states that a building cannot be a kindergarten. IMO it is a controversy, but I don't blame iD for following the wiki Jnicho02 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- The automatic removal of the building tag is a caused by iD's way to model OSM in presets. Presets are exclusive, the model used by iD does not allow one object to be two things at the same time (e.g. shop=* + building=*. For comparision, Vespucci and JOSM are able to assign more than one preset to an object (How did Potlatch 2 handle it?). In the case of shops, it was partially fixed by using building=* as an additional, optional attribute of the shop. However, changing a building=retail to a supermarket using the presets, replaces building=retail by building=yes and therefore removes information accidentially. Individual problems caused by the exclusiveness of presets have been addressed in a couple of issues, at least some have been fixed with the workaround using building=yes but others (e.g. schools) are not fixed because the maintainer preferred not to fix it. Some problems are linked in a comment by Bryan Housel on GitHub.
- I am a bit cautious to directly add something as controversial on this wiki page. It documents cases but it is although viewed by some people as a pillory. While there is some disagreement visible there, I would not add it to the list on this wiki page directly. GitHub issue 5883 mentions only a single problem caused by the exclusiveness. I suggest to open a ticket addressing the exclusiveness directly, not its consequences (there are already plenty of issues mentioning various consequences). If that ticket is closed without a fix, it is obviously a confirmed controversial decision. If it stays open for longer, it might be added to this list as well and the GitHub issue at least serves the purpose of trying to raise awareness of the issue. If exclusiveness has already been addressed in its own GitHub issue in the past and that ticket has been closed, you can IMHO directly add it as a controversial decision to this wiki page. You might comment to GitHub issue 5398 instead of creating a new one. Note that removing exclusiveness could be require a lot of work for a developer. --Nakaner (talk) 10:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
- The automatic removal of the building tag is a caused by iD's way to model OSM in presets. Presets are exclusive, the model used by iD does not allow one object to be two things at the same time (e.g. shop=* + building=*. For comparision, Vespucci and JOSM are able to assign more than one preset to an object (How did Potlatch 2 handle it?). In the case of shops, it was partially fixed by using building=* as an additional, optional attribute of the shop. However, changing a building=retail to a supermarket using the presets, replaces building=retail by building=yes and therefore removes information accidentially. Individual problems caused by the exclusiveness of presets have been addressed in a couple of issues, at least some have been fixed with the workaround using building=yes but others (e.g. schools) are not fixed because the maintainer preferred not to fix it. Some problems are linked in a comment by Bryan Housel on GitHub.
- Heh. I agree that I would be surprised if, for example, a kindergarten building were de-buildingified, but on the wiki on 27 March 2016 "A kindergarten can be added as a node or an area" changed to "The campus of a should be drawn as an area tagged with amenity=kindergarten." which more-or-less states that a building cannot be a kindergarten. IMO it is a controversy, but I don't blame iD for following the wiki Jnicho02 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Resolved: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)== Where waterway=riverbank is claimed as deprecated in iD? ==0
"iD is incorrectly claiming that standard OpenStreetMap water scheme (landuse=reservoir, waterway=riverbank) is "deprecated"" - where iD is claiming this? I am aware that iD encourages double tagging with natural=water but it is not incorrect Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- Nowadays at least it claims that it is deprecated, withdrawing it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Resolved Is inability to use landuse=reservoir, waterway=riverbank as presets is actually controversial?
Is there a tagging mailing list thread or something similar where multiple people actually agree that it is undesirable/wrong? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
- I removed this. If you add it back - please include some discussion where people actually agree with that it is problematic (as in more than one person or two) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)