Talk:Key:industrial

Sandbox for testing structuring

I started rearrangement and structuring of the table of values and created a sandbox page to see for myself if and how a structure could be. I have to state, it's not easy to categorize! Feel invited to develop it further! --Chris2map (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the sandbox. It's a little better. I still think low usage tags like industrial=packaging should still be removed though. It's a pretty basic thing that no article is meant to be exhaustive or list every possible tag/key combo. That said, splitting it up into sections is still helpful. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of this approach : First the general structure, then the details. Moved this topic to the top to be noticed first. @everyone else : please check & participate on the discussion page of the sandbox page to agree on a general structure user:rtfm Rtfm (talk) 23:01, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am generally against using the industrial=* key to tag features, as it appears to be generally used as a landuse subtag. There are already established tags to define the kind of factory and products. Please stop adding undiscussed, lowest usage tags like industrial=fish_farm (8 occurences, not clear why this is "industrial", never discussed in a public forum) --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

landuse=harbour/port/industrial

The Harbour page suggest tagging the harbour area as landuse=harbour. The landuse=*-page suggests landuse=port, which in turn suggests landuse=industrial + industrial=port. I guess it would be a good idea to clean up these definitions. --Skippern (talk)

Have you seen seaway=*? There are various tags for port tagging. --Dieterdreist (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Definition and difference?

Does anyone know the definition and difference between industrial=wellsite and industrial=well_cluster? Chrabros (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

industrial=well_cluster is a larger area with multiple wells, industrial=wellsite is a more general tag, that can be used on sites with solitaire wells as well as well clusters. IMO industrial=wellsite should be preferred over industrial=well_cluster and the well cluster tag can be advised against. --Skippern (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

factory vs. furniture vs. ice_factory

Why there are special tags industrial=furniture and industrial=ice_factory?

I thing it should be replaced by: industrial=factory, product=furniture and industrial=factory, product=ice (together with man_made=works)

--Mkyral (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I also see no need for "industrial=ice_factory". It can be mapped adequately with man_made=works + product=ice. --Chris2map (talk) 08:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with removing both of those. Plus, industrial=food_industry and industrial=food_processing. It's not clear how they are different as it is and lists like this shouldn't be exhaustive anyway. What about industrial=rice_mill also, or industrial=bakery (product=baked_goods?) and industrial=brewery (product=alcohol?) though? or for that matter industrial=oil and industrial=slaughterhouse? Going on the high usage of both of them one could argue that the industrial=factory product=* ship has already sank.

The problem is that the tag isn't defined good enough to not include tags like industrial=furniture and it will always be the expensive of using industrial=factory + product=* instead. Unless the definition is clear the tag doesn't apply to "type of industrial object." Although, the difference between a type of industrial and what is being produced isn't really that clear. That said, any tag with extremely low usage shouldn't be included in the list anyway and most of the "type of industrial object" aren't used enough for inclusion IMO. Ultimately, it might be helpful to get rid of the table and use the space to better define things. Since there's really only like 5 tags that are "types of industry" anyway and tables just encourage "listivism." Plus, IMO the article should say how industrial=factory, industrial=*, and man_made=works are different from each other. As it is they all seem to be either the same thing or very similar, and I think that's where most of the problem comes from. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposing a new value : industrial=grain_storage_centre

I propose this new value in order to add agricultural cooperatives sites in OpenStreetMap. In France, they are quite common, basically, it is a large site with many silos and barns which concentrates crops from farms around before selling at best prices. An example, la Cascap : http://www.cascap-darris.fr/stockage Currently, it seems that such a site is commonly tagged (in France) : landuse=industrial + industrial=agriculture + operator=[cooperative's name] + operator:type=cooperative.

However, the tag industrial=agriculture is not defined in the page Key:industrial and it would be too hard to define anyway because it is too ambiguous and large in my opinion, so I propose another value instead for those specific sites : industrial=grain_storage_centre.

What do you think about my proposal ?

(Sorry for my broken english, it's not my first language ! :)

CapitaineMoustache (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

See above section Talk:Key:industrial#factory_vs._furniture_vs._ice_factory. Currently there's a mix of industrial=process/function, industrial=product, and industrial=product process/function values; togehter with product=* (although associated with manufacturing on-site direcly), and substance=* (or the ambigious content=*). industrial=agriculture would be a kind of industrial=industry value. I don't know - I might tend towards industrial=storage + product=grain. We have industrial=warehouse, however silos won't usually be called "warehouse". When comapred with Talk:Key:industrial#Open_air_storage section below, either they would exist as a more specific same-key value compared to industrial=storage (ie choose from industrial=storage, industrial=warehouse, etc); or they should be a sub-tag (eg storage=warehouse, storage=silo, etc). -- Kovposch (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

For the output of a facility I would use product=* and for the input substance=*. – To proposed grain_storage_centre, how about industrial=storage_centre + product=grain? --Chris2map (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There's 115 uses of the tag industrial=storage and a key "storage" with 2386 uses that weirdly doesn't have a Wiki article. Maybe those would be a good way to do it. The storage key so far is confined to substances though, not objects. Which makes sense IMO. The warehouse/silo isn't what's being stored. There's also a proposal for landuse=storage. Which might be an option. Except I'm not a fan of nesting together landuses. Plus, industrial=storage + storage=whatever is just clearer. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

substance=* isn't related to input nor output nor any given phase in a process. As we don't have any framework for processing tagging yet, I'll keep describing what's inside pipes but not more.

It may be good to think about substance:input=*/substance:output=* or input:substance=*/output:substance=*, whatever Fanfouer (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Open air storage

When I see a piece of open land used as a storage area for various goods (often for building materials), it's easy to tag it as landuse=industrial because that seems to match the definition. That's where the easy part ends because we don't have a documented tag for describing the industry further. We do have industrial=warehouse but "warehouse" is usually understood to refer to a building, or a set of buildings. Until I'm admonished, I will be tagging these places with industrial=storage. -- T99 (talk) 08:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I edited the description accordingly. -- Kovposch (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

You could specify it is outdoor storage. There are quite a few *=open-air tags, yet they seem to ignore location=outdoor (common) or indoor=yes (for indoor features). -- Kovposch (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

chemical

"chemical" would be a basic value for industrial so it should be on the list, IMO. I'm surprised that it's only used 66 times so far. The ouput could be tagged with product=*. --Chris2map (talk) 07:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

smelter, smeltery, smelting

Instead of creating a separate value for each type of smelter (iron, steel, aluminium, ...) I would use "smelter" as universal value and then use substance=* to specify it. The addition of product=* would also be possible. Following this, I would take aluminium_smelting off the list (used 18 times so far). --Chris2map (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that. The numbers are to low anyway. What's the difference between a smelter and a factor though? and would it also include industrial=steelmaking? IMO it should, but I don't know if a steelmaker is a smelter.

"Food processing" vs "food industry"

It's not really clear what the difference is. IMO one should be removed, or both should be (they are both horrible semantically) and landuse=factory + product=food should be used instead. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

landuse=factory seems even worse and duplicate of landuse=industrial + man_made=works/industrial=factory Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Both are equally bad. It's a wild west, so at the very least I added Taginfo stats as a temporary remedy before. -- Kovposch (talk) 14:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant industrial=factory. I agree that landuse=factory isn't good. What I meant to say is that the two food values should be replaced by industrial=factory and product=food. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Feature vs. landuse

Many of the proposed values on this page (undiscussed and rarely used in many instances), go beyond "landuse" in their specificity. They seem to be intended to define features. As industrial=* is intended as a subkey for landuse=industrial, they should be landuse specific. Features like an aluminium smelter, a bakery, brewery, brickyard, factory, grinding_mill, heating_station, ice_factory, ... should get their own feature tags, not be mixed into landuse tagging. In some cases, there is already established tagging for such features, for example factories are tagged as man_made=works. My suggestion is to deprecate most of the tags and only keep keys that make sense at the second level industrial landuse. The specific company and field of operating will be tagged as features (typically man_made=*. What do you think? --Dieterdreist (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you explain "second level industrial landuse"? How do you want to organize industrial activities? While I agree with the need to fix the values and distinguish the two concepts, they often overlap. Some caution is needed. ---- Kovposch (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There are various ways we could have second level industrial landuse, e.g. distinguishing between light industry and heavy industry would be both, consistent with the whole of the tagging system and useful.--Dieterdreist (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What would be the cut off between light industry and heavy industry and how would someone tell which one somewhere is based on satellite photos (or any other way for that matter? Count the number of heavy goods vehicles or storage tanks on the property? Base it on how large the "facility" is? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

parallel tagging, man_made=works

Somehow people have started developing and refining the tagging of industrial sites with the intent to describe production features by using landuse tags. Actually there is already a scheme for factories, suitable for feature tagging, rather than land use: man_made=works and subtags. Continuing with landuse detailing we would be creating a duplication and parallel system and eliminate the difference between landuse as a property for the land and feature tags to map discrete features. —Dieterdreist (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with that. This tag and it's sub keys are problematic for a number of reasons. Least of which is that it's just creating an un-needed alternative to the man_made=works tagging scheme. Also, the definitions and usage of lot of the keys aren't really clear either. Really, a lot of them should not be recommended and depreciated before this gets out of hand and totally fragments the man_made=works scheme. Especially whichever ones have a clear, more widely used alternatives. There's zero reason to branch off a tag that has like thousands of uses already for something that is extremely ill defined and only has a couple of hundred uses at best. Which is how a lot of these tags are. Also, a lot of these are just pointless duplicates of each other. Which doesn't help either. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I also agree with both of you. I had tried to deal with the ambiguous use and interpretations of the tagging, but haven't come far and have no clear way out to solve this. At that time I realized it was not easy or possible to drop tags (values of industrial) without to offend. And it wasn't entirely clear to me that man_made=works is also to use on a site and not only on a building (This is now clearly stated at the wiki page). First I started with sorting values to get an overview and structure. Though a determination is needed what is to be described by the different taggings. In the meantime, reducing the number of tags/values for industrial is not a bad idea, especially for those who are hardly used and those where there is an distinct labeling with man_made=works + product. --Chris2map (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

So far I've dealt with industrial=factory‎‎, industrial=machine shop‎‎, industrial=rice mill‎, industrial=furniture‎‎, industrial=steelmaking‎, industrial=brewery‎, industrial=food industry‎‎, and industrial=food processing‎. I'm still going through the other ones, but if there's any other's that should dealt with feel free to throw them out there. A few like industrial=shipyard and industrial=warehouse really need to be resolved to, but I'm not sure how. Especially industrial=shipyard. Plus, there's some that have a lot of uses but are still problematic. I'm not sure how to handle those either. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not a good idea start destroying documentation on used tags before there's a clear description what should be used instead. Example industrial=factory rtfm Rtfm (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I've told you like five times now that man_made=works can (and should) be used instead of industrial=factory. Like I asked you on your talk page, what's not clear about "The term works is used to denote an industrial production plant, also known as a factory" in the man_made=works article? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I had an argument with Adamant1 about the deprecation of industrial=sawmill (see history and talk page) and he asked me to share my opinion here. The parallel system you talk about has existed for many years. I've always had a feeling that most mappers consider man_made=works a somewhat obsolete tag that made sense in early OSM days but nobody really wants or needs anymore, similar to abutters=*. There are now more fine-grained tagging schemes based on building=* and its subtags for buildings and landuse=industrial and its subtags for the areas. I mainly use man_made=works for industrial constructions that are not buildings, or as an additional tag (on landuse or building) that may not be necessary but does no harm either. According to taginfo, there are 882K landuse=industrial and 151K man_made=works. The latter number is small in comparison, but still huge as an absolute number. That surprises me, because that tag doesn't seem that abundant in my country. I guess that many of those 151K come from imports. Such numbers also vary a lot with editor and renderer support. A small change in an editor configuration can boost or lower the usage count quickly. Long story short: All of these tags are widely used, and partly for the same things. We may or may not like it, but that's how it is. We can now argue which tag we prefer for which cases, but it simply doesn't matter in this context. Feature pages in the wiki should document current usage. Not how we want the tags to be used, but how they have been used so far. To target future use, you need at least a proposal, and even a few dozens of approval votes for a proposal can hardly justify documentation changes on tags that have been used by thousands of mappers. The few participants of this thread, even if they all agree, have even less so a right to deprecate tags with thousands of instances. If you dislike a certain tag, leave a comment on the respective talk page, and feel free to mention on the feature page that there's an alternative approach how to map it, but don't try to change existing standards, let alone deprecate tags with thousands of instances. --Fkv (talk) 04:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

industrial=factory

I am against the removal of industrial=factory. It has been used 8028 times and it's the second most popular value. Industrial=factory is not the the as man_made=works! The other one is used to indicate that there is an active factory. The first one is detailing landuse=industrial, that in this area there are OR WERE factories. There doesn't have to be an acitve factory - if it was closed or abandoned, the tag is still landuse=industrial + industrial=factory but we can remove man_made=works. Moreover, one landuse=industrial + industrial=factory can be used on area with many factories. So industrial=factory doesn't say "there is one factory here", but "This industrial area is covered with factories". Similarly to landuse=residential + residential=apartments - if no one lives in such an area and all the buildings are abandoned, they are still building=apartments and the landuse is still landuse=residential + residential=apartments. The same with building=retail + shop=* - if the shop was closed, the building is still building=retail. Plese restore industrial=factory. (Other changes look ok for me) maro21 14:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'd agree with you if the tag was industrial=factories, instead of singular "factory" or factories were a type of landuse in the first place. I think your stretching how many levels down in a tagging we can go though. There's also a factory tag with 730 uses. The whole thing gets rather convoluted, abstract, and worthless the further down you go with it. That can't be said for landuse=residential + residential=apartments because it's plural and pretty much ends there. There's like 100 uses of the apartments tag, but it's mostly confined to the numbers of apartments.

Also, I'd say your stretching it by saying that a place that no longer contains factories should continue being tagged as landuse=industrial + industrial=factory. Except for extremely rare exceptions we don't map things that don't exist anymore and an empty field where there use to be a factory is just an empty field. Otherwise, the definition of "You can describe the type of industry or type of industrial object using the tag" wouldn't work, because what object or type of industry are you describing then? Also, are factories a type of industry? Can you really map an object with a landuse tag? Last I checked you can't. Which is the main reason man_made=works just makes more sense. Factories are physical objects, not abstract landuse concepts. More so because the tag isn't even for tagging "factories" it's for tagging "a factory." --Adamant1 (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

BTW, if you want a perfect example of what I'm talking about, feel free to look at the factory keys article which was created by RTFM and is just a duplication of the product tag because supposedly factories aren't products or some nonsense. The ways in which other tags can be duplicated because "whatever isn't whatever" even though they are essentially tagging the same exact thing is pretty much endless. Even the industrial=factory tag's description says it's for tagging tag "a Factory" and that it's only "sometimes used with landuse=industrial" tag. So there's literally no difference between it and the man_made=works tag. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

You are right, a factory is not a land use but a collection of buildings and technical equipment. For a detailed depiction of the factory, besides building=* other man_made=* tags should be used like man_made=chimney , man_made=crane , man_made=flare , man_made=gasometer , man_made=goods_conveyor , man_made=kiln , man_made=pipeline , man_made=storage_tank . --ALu68 (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The industrial=factory tag can be used as long as detailed information about the specific industry is not known. The man_made=works tag doesn't make sense, since the industrial area can generally be described with landuse=industrial+industrial=* . The whole area should be separated from the different companies so that name=*+product=* including the lifecycle prefix can be set correctly. --ALu68 (talk) 12:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

man_made=works is a feature. landuse=* is a categorical collection. place=farm is not the same as landuse=farm* either. --- Kovposch (talk) 10:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Industry vs utility

In this proposal, we're currently discussing the opportunity to replace some industrial=* values that sounds more like an activity or a substance, which industrial=* doesn't look like to actually describe.
To me, industrial=oil and industrial=gas are intruders, preventing to describe what the facility actually is while intending to occult this with the substance it run through or the undergoing activity inside.
Nothing is approved, it could be inaccurate to replace them with equivalent utility=*, but for now I'm sure they have to be removed from industrial=*. To me, oil & gas production to consumers is an utility industry and it's possible to change my mind if I'm wrong Fanfouer (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Please note that utility infrastructure does not belong to the industrial sector, but construction companies do - see Class 422/4220 "Construction of Utility Projects" page 174 International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities - United Nations Statistics Publication.

You're right, the definitions of industrial=oil and industrial=gas are very broad: "exploration, extraction, refining, extraction, storage, distribution, marketing" and not specific enough. Only refining belongs to the industrial sector industrial=refinery where oil and gas is processed to different products. Gas is in addition raw material for the chemical industry to produce commodity and speciality chemicals (see class 192 + 20, pages 109 et sqq.).

Do you know that similar keys exists, like content=* and substance=* ? For industrial companies the key product=* make sense like produce=* for agriculture and resource=* for mining.

--ALu68 (talk) 10:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for mentioning this UN document which is a really interesting piece to work with.

However, I think you were looking to the wrong section: we're not dealing about construction but operation and maintenance. The 422/4220 class only regards companies that are involved in construction (public works, mostly contractors). utility=* regards infrastructure operation, then:

utility=water => classes 3600, 4930 - Section E water supply

utility=sewerage => classes 3700, 4930 - Section E sewerage

utility=power => class 3510 - Section D power

utility=gas => classes 3520, 4930 - Section E gas

utility=telecom => class 6120 - Section J information and communication

utility=oil => class 1920, 4930 - Section C manufacturing

Furthermore, utility=* only regards activities while product=*, content=* or substance=* regard physical goods or fluids. A given utility can involve several of them: utility=heating can involve both substance=steam and substance=hot_water. Utility can't replace substance, it's two different concepts.

I possibly will update utility=* values with appropriate ISIC classes where there is no doubt and let discussion go about industrial=oil. It's definitely not about section F construction Fanfouer (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

page overhaul/(new/proper) definition of this tag

I think we can all agree that the "industrial=*" tag is a huge mess where no one really knows what it actually means. It's used for all sorts of things, and all it really says is that an OSM feature is somehow related to some industry. That's way too vague to make this key/tag useful for anything.

Since I also have a strong focus on industrial facilities when editing OSM, it is important to me to have a reliable way to tag them. Therefore I have been working on an overhaul of this wiki page for the last month. See here.

Key point is that "industrial=*" finally gets a proper definition. And that is in a nutshell that "industrial=*" represents a POI, like shop=* or craft=*.

All the values, some of which are new and some of which are already existing, are rather secondary. They are largely based on the NAICS (North American Industry Classification System). Pretty much every industrial plant should be able to be uniquely tagged with it. However, it may be that some values are perhaps too specific and should be merged, or some values are still missing. However, the list is still more or less complete. Each value also has an aerial image link to an example that could be tagged this way. At the end of the page, I also listed some industrial tags which are currently used but don't fit into this proposed scheme (most are duplicates of other tags)
What are your thoughts on this?

Hello and thank you for this huge work. I completely agree that this page could be greatly improved.

However, we should take care of page structure and tagging definition. Page structure could be refined quickly, based upon your own work. Tagging definition should be discussed further, through Proposal_process if necessary. It has been done on the values you already pointed out in your proposal Fanfouer (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is a mess. For me industrial=* is a second-level complementary tag to landuse=industrial. maro21 22:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The industrial key is very likely a refinement of landuse=industrial so it is not about a feature and everything pointing in this direction should be deprecated. We use man_made as key for industrial features. —-Dieterdreist (talk) 07:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

landuse=industrial is not a PoI facility. What you need is more features a la man_made=works factories. --- Kovposch (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There is a big mess. This idea of "industrial" being a "second-level/description" of a landuse=industrial dosen't make sense - it should be deprecated. For example, compare the tags "industrial=scrap_yard" and "industrial=oil". Both tags are documented, the first is a POI, the second is a general description of a landuse - "Oil industry". This is not a POI - it's a very shallow description. Does industrial=oil mean a refinery, a petroleum terminal, a oil well, a pipeline valve, a pipeline pump station, a marker? It could be anything, this makes this tag useless. If you want to properly tag every industrial plant you're coming across, you'll quickly notice that the current state of this key is not sufficient to do so. Or "industrial=factory", which is a duplicate to "man_made=works". It would make much more sense to use "industrial" to indicate the type of factory instead of using it to indicate the presence of a factory - presence is already indicated by "man_made=works". See also the banner on the main page "This page contains questionable content" and all the discussions on this talk page. There are clearly problems with this key.
@Fanfouer Is it possible to make a proposal only for the industrial=* definition? I don't want to formally propose any of those (new) tags in my draft, as I'm sure they can still be improved. It's only about making a clear definintion which dosen't exist right now (+differentiation to other tags).
"industrial" is the perfect key for !detailed! tagging of industrial facilities, "man_made" is already some kind of "catch-all" tag and shouldn't catch even more. Hiausirg (talk) 08:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

1. There is already product=* for man_made=works details. Suffixing *=*_mill , *=*_manufacturing , etc is redundant. industry=* has also been used.
2. man_made=* being bad doesn't mean industrial=* is good, let alone perfect. You are still mixing manufacturing with other industrial activities there. Besides, there were arguments on whether logistics is "industrial" or "commercial".

--- Kovposch (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1. product=* is completely unsuitable to tag the type of industry. See the tags on 82591561 82591561 as an example. product=* contains very specialized substances, no one is going to specificially query for such values when looking for chemical industry establishments. However, the tag "industrial=chemical" (or any other "industrial" value listed on my page linked above) is obvious and can be queried for.
2. Mixing them is not much of a problem? Industry is a lot more than just manufacturing. And manufacturing will still be identifiable by the "man_made=works" tag. Logistics falls under industry, because they don't deal with "end customers", to be short. Hiausirg (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1. And how about industry=* ? I doubt product=* is supposed to list out everything produced. Or suggest eg product=chemical + chemical:*=* / chemical=* similar to product=fuel and fuel:*=* .
2. It's not a simple question. Eg you are redefining industrial=warehouse relative to industrial=distributor . That's not obvious, and all the existing 6k instances have to be checked for updates.

Kovposch (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"industry" would probably be too similar to "industrial" and lead to confusion. It also dosen't change that the current "industrial" is a very messy and unrelieable key which needs to be cleaned up, better sooner than later. - - - I use product=* to freely type everything produced, and I (propose to) use industrial=* as a machine-readable, systematic value to tag the industry type/class. Using something like "product=chemical/chemical=x" or "product=vehicle/vehicle=boxcar" could probably be done, but I prefer using the "industrial" key for this more general information like product "chemical". Addidionally, this could lead to confusion, because it will lead to many new keys being created (such as "chemical"/"vehicle"), this could cause more conflicts. For point #2, see the other reply below.

This will still create countless val in product=* uncontrollably, and not easily readable without a UI. If you list everything, it's not possible to ascertain their significance. With product=chemical , there can be eg chemical:A=main + chemical:B=additional + chemical:C=no (+ tag:chemical:D=feedstock + chemical:E=by-product whatever theat means if applicable). Another problem is the phase and form. From your example, will there be product=purified_* for everything possible? Next, for different purity? It's not scalable.

--- Kovposch (talk) 11:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Providing such an UI is the data user's task. Countless uncontrolled values exist currently in the industrial key and i'm trying to do something againest that. Are "uncontrolled values" within "product" even a problem? I think that "industrial" is a primary value, which indicates a feature and can queried for, and "product" is a supplemental value which is just some extra information.

Some very basic, limited significance assesment can be provided by listening the primary products first (e.g. "product=gasoline;diesel;propane;sulfur" for a refinery - to assess gasoline&diesel as primary refinery output, propane as additional and sulfur as byproduct, some basic common sense is needed) The scheme you're proposing sounds interesting, but I think it's too far/complex right now, where we don't even have a way to reliably tag basic industry types. Also, your chemical:A/B/C etc scheme should be usable without a basic product=chemical present. Hiausirg (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Or in other words; if you use "industrial=*" to describe "landuse=industrial", it is either very broad/general and thus useless for most cases (industrial=oil, industrial=factory ... could be anything ... isn't an oil refinery also a factory, contradictions here?), or it gets detailed, into the direction that it can be used as a POI tag. (industrial=refinery, industrial=paper_mill) Hiausirg (talk) 09:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

A scrapyard is not a POI. No one goes there to run errands (like at a bank, restaurant, or car_repair shop). If a scrapyard were to be a POI, it might as well be a meadow, because you can go there to pick flowers.

If this scrapyard provided some kind of service, such as that I can scrap a car there, that is, come with it and leave it there, then there would have to be an additional POI like amenity, for example amenity=recycling+recycling_type=centre. maro21 09:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

There are significant differences between an recycling centre and an scrapyard. A recycling center is usually publicly operated (by local goverment), and is intended for private people to drop off all kinds of waste materials. A scrapyard is a private business, which primarly buys larger amounts of scrap metal from other businesses, such as demolition companies or also public recycling centres. Addidionally, the scrap is sorted & processed, which isn't usually done at recycling centers. While private people can also sell scrap (pretty much always, as far I know), such as their car, they are not the main customers targeted.

To me, every business, which has a physical presence is a POI. This includes every industrial facility/factory. A trashcan somewhere in a park or even a pipeline marker is also considered a POI, but no one goes there specifically to run errands. Hiausirg (talk) 11:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The definition is not about what is "interesting", or what it is. A PoI means it is an individual identifiable feature. landuse=* is a homogeneous painting attribute for classifying areas abstractly. --- Kovposch (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

"Detailed" is unrelated to whether it is a PoI. It is an attribute for landuse=* , which is not a individual PoI feature either. landuse=* is yet another "catch-all" method that can assign or consolidate areas arbitrarily. --- Kovposch (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why we should get rid of that weird idea that "industrial" is some kind of subtag to "landuse=industrial". This dosen't make sense at all. While they are still going to be very common combinations, they should be independent of each other. Hiausirg (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I think we either have to live with the dual use as abstract land use and as an individual industrial facility, or come up with a new key for the industrial facilities, which doesn't describe well with works=* or man_made=*. I would prefer the latter (a new key). --Chris2map (talk) 08:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that a new key (like "industry" instead of "industrial" or so (this causes confusion and dosen't change that "industrial" is basically useless in it's current form) is really nessescary. It is however nessescary to make clear that "industrial" is NOT directly related/dependent to/of "landuse=industrial" - of course they will be common combinations nonetheless. I hope it's understandable what I mean.

I would also like to point out that it seems from the first versions of the "industrial" page, that it was intended to describe "the type of industry" (like "shop=*" describes the type of a shop), doing just what i'm intending to do here. Hiausirg (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Unresponded comment in Proposal talk:Industrial#Too detailed for the first subtag level, much is already covered by man made for that. The existing usage is what matters, not one user's version of the original idea.
The industry is at most your section titles. Classification can be made at many levels, eg why not "automotive industry" for everything in general overindustrial=automobile_industry etc, or "milk industry" and "cheese industry" etc specifically inside industrial=dairy? They need to be organized meaningfully. You also have inconsistent naming overall, and we don't need to repeat *=*_industry or *=*_manufacturing etc on every val in the first place when there are better formats.
You can do eg industrial:NAICS:*=* if you want to follow the standard strictly. There are already a few non-human-readable naics=* and industrial:naics_code=* . But looking from this perspective, NAICS have different agglomeration levels by the digits. So why choose based on the 5-digit "industry", rather than 4-digit "industry group"? You are mixing both single and multiple 5-digit codes. That's not a consistent data format. --- Kovposch (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, existing usage must be considered, especially at a tag with over 200k uses. However, the "existing usage" dosen't exist. There are many people, who used this tag, with different ideas of the tag, with different approaches to the tag. And probably countless people just wrote something into the preset field, probably also because documentation of this tag is basically nonexistent. This leads to this tag being basically worthless, because a data consumer dosen't know what the editor who added it meant by the tag.
I tried to balance the list of proposed tag values between "This value is too general, e.g. "industrial=textile"" and "This value is too specialized, e.g. "industrial=industrial_furnace_manufacturing"", considering "What could the average editor tag, without the system being too complicated or too general". I'm not adding "_industry" to "every value", the only tag this occurs is at "automotive_industry", which I choose because it is already used +200 times. Other tag appendixes like "_manufacturing" or "_processing" exist to make the tag's meaning clear. For example, there is "industrial=plastic_manufacturing" and "industrial=plastic_processing". Manufacturing is for facilities where plastics are made from polymers (usually granular form), processing where final products are produced from plastic (granular). Important difference. Appendices like "_mill" are often also just part of the name, e.g. a paper factory is commonly called a "paper mill".

However, those tags are not exactly what I'm proposing - i'm proposing primarly a definition. The tags can still be changed considering naming, categorizing, definition, whatever. I made the list only to have a more or less complete scheme for the definition to more or less start off from, the exact details of the list can still be worked out later.

You can do eg industrial:NAICS:*=* if you want to follow the standard strictly. This is exactly what I don't want. I want an universally usable tagging scheme, which everyone can use (worldwide), not only one who has deep NAICS knowledge (I dealt with NAICS over the last month making this list, and I am still not even close to have "deep knowledge" about it.) Hiausirg (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

You've really invested a lot of time in your listing! I could relate to most of the attributes you list. There, too, there are values that are sometimes more or less abstract or superordinate. That's what I meant by "we have to live with the duality". For me, however, the meaning as abstract land use is not worthless and equally important. Admittedly, I can't come up with a powerful suggestion for the idea of a new key. That's where my English skills are exhausted. Unless someone comes up with a great idea, I stick with the two different definitions. We would then have to talk about one or the other key value (lightning should probably mean lighting). --Chris2map (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

1. But you can't fix it easily by using your definition to adopt them. Bad data can't be salvaged and cleaned in this scale.
2. The attempt to balancing doesn't lead to a uniform data hierarchy. It needs to structured, not balanced, when you have product=* for the next levels (depending on our views).
   1. 200 instances doesn't mean it's good, or should be used. It's counterproductive and confusing to list your separate definition, without relationship to how they are used now, when they are known to be meaningless.
   2. The use of "manufacturing" here has different meaning from others. "Processing" is vague, which can mean processing and finishing a final product as well. Again, will there be *_manufacturing=* and *_processing=* for every intermediate and final product? If a site somehow does both manufacturing and processing, it will have to be industrial=plastic_manufacturing;plastic_processing ? It can at least be *=granular_plastic and *=plastic_products , but that overlaps with the issue of product=* . Another example, preserved meat and cut meat are different, and "processed meat" usually refers to preserved meat, so "meat processing" meaning both is confusing Meat-packing is commonly identified separately.
   3. Then industrial=paper_mill is not the industry. The factory should be product=paper + works=mill if even necessary, very much redundant if always true. Cf works=oil_refinery , which could simply be works=refinery . For the style, we don't always use the common word eg building=apartment_tower / building=apartment_building / building=apartment_block / etc in full, when building=apartments is sufficient and organized.
3. NAICS is only one option. What needs to be considered is conceptually, you can align with its 4-digit level, instead of dealing with all the 5-digit level here.

--- Kovposch (talk) 11:56, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

1. If we don't even try, yes. There's no magic fairy coming some day and the problem disappears, either we clean it up -rather sooner than later, the scale isn't getting smaller- or it will stay a huge problem forever.
2. I thought "the existing usage matters". Well then not apparently, I changed it to "industrial=automotive_parts", which has zero existing usages.
   1. No, manufacturing/processing is not needed for every product/industry. I chose to use it where the difference between the types is significant enough to be tag-worthy. If somehow two values still apply to one facility, you either judge by the primary purpose, you divide the man_made=works into two areas for the two parts of the factory, or you just use a ";". "meat_processing" should include both cutting & packing, I don't think it's nessescary to to into more detail here, at he "industry=*" level. "product=" or something else can specify that. If you have a better definition for this tag or a better name or a bew tag, just add it to the draft page.
   2. "Paper mill" means "factory producing paper AND/OR cardboard". A "man_made=mill" is no difference to "man_made=works", it's just a difference that some factories are commonly called "mill" instead of "factory".
   3. I'm not trying to copy NAICS in any way, what I was using is a combination of 4, 5 and class 6 categories to make up the "concept".
      1. And again, my primary goal here is to finally get a clear definition for "industrial". The values are just an example of how tagging could look when using this definition, I never said that those tags are perfect in any way. Hiausirg (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried to depreciate one key from this a year ago after a discussion on the mailing list about it and a couple of people here agreed with me that it was redundant. Which ultimately led to me being blocked by LYX for six months because I was supposedly pushing my own agenda on other users or some nonsense. So while the key is clearly trash and should thrown out as such, it's not worth the hassle of trying to do anything about it. At least it wasn't for me. Although maybe you'll get lucky. In the meantime though, this totally doesn't make sense as a subkey of landuse=industrial and should be depreciated regardless of if people like LYX think doing so is pushing personal agenda or whatever. -Adamant1 (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if all I'm going to do here will only result in a waste of time and lead to nothing, and the key will reach +1 million uses in 10 or so years (roughly current growth rate, 100k usages at Jan 2020, 210k now) and still no data consumer will have any clue what exactly is meant by the key.... "At least I tried." Hiausirg (talk) 10:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I don't disagree with that. It's still good to know what your possibly getting into though so you can plan and account for it whenever you try to change things. Personally, I'd hate to someone get blocked for "personal agenda pushing" or whatever nonsense just because they didn't cross all their Ts or dot all their Is before altering something like I did and people can be super concern trollish on here sometimes when it comes to that type of stuff even under the best conditions. That's the only reason I brought it up. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Continuing with the definitions – we are talking about the following cases, right?

- F) Description of a industrial facility (factory) or company

- L) Description of an industrial area

Do you have any other definitions that we should consider in the discussion? Is "facility" one definition or do we have to make a distinction between describing a factory (plant) and a company?

My thoughts on 'F': That is basically a synonym for "works". Instead of industrial= you could also use works= with the same values, I think. Or am I making a (possibly linguistic) mistake here? Do you see cases where works= would be inappropriate? – For me as a non-native speaker the following would be an easy and logical usage: For plants man_made=works + works=.... And for areas landuse=industrial + industrial=.... But I also like to try to understand other perspectives. In addition, I don't think I care about the topic of existing usage as long as we're talking about a viable definition. We can then deal with that in the next step. --Chris2map (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We're talking about more or less both. A description of a industrial facility is also a description of the industrial area, while a description of a industtrial area is not nessescarly a description of a industrial facility.

By "facility" I mean just a (real-world) "object" related to industry. For example, a petroleum terminal is clearly a industrial "object" (->industrial facility), but not a "factory" - nothing is produced there. A factory is a "man_made=works", a facility where something is produced.

The problem with that is that many industrial objects are not works. (All proposed tags under "Transportation & Warehousing Industry/Mining" on the draft page). If "works" would be used instead of "industrial", all those industrial non-works objects would need another new key other than works to record their type, because a "works" would just be wrong there. Hiausirg (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of those objects are already being mapped with other tags. Like with the discussion about industrial=warehouses below this, there's already 351,672 uses of building=warehouse versus 6,022 for industrial=warehouse. The same goes a lot of other objects related to "industry" (whatever that means).

"building=*" is not a POI. "building=retail" is not "shop=*", "building=apartments" is not "residential=apartments" Basically none of those objects are mapped with other tags.Hiausirg (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Really, the more interesting and important question IMO is what you mean by "industry." If you just going by the textbook definition of "economic activity" then it just supports that these tags are redundant because there's already a ton of other tags for mapping that. If you mean "industrial" though, as in facilities that manufacture raw materials into products, then there's the same issue. Otherwise, what's your proposal, that we should be tagging random objects that are mapped with other tags as industrial=whatever just because they happen to be slightly related to economic activity or industrial production somehow? Like if there's an office a manufacturing plant currently tagged as office=company are you suggesting we should re-tag it as industrial=office or something similar just because it's "related to industry"? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

"industrial" -> "an industrial facility". industrial should be used to tag the type of facilities related to industrial production. A company office clearly isn't an industrial facility? what's your proposal, that we should be tagging random objects that are mapped with other tags as industrial=whatever just because they happen to be slightly related to economic activity or industrial production somehow? - ?? there are no other tags for "type of industrial facility" ...read the draft page again. Hiausirg (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know tags like industrial=warehouse fits into that. Warehouses aren't really factories, companies, or industrial areas. I don't think man_made=works + works=whatever really describes a warehouse either. But apparently they can't just be tagged as landuse=commerical along with mapping the actual warehouse buildings as building=warehouse because that's "personal agenda pushing" or whatever. So it might be necessary to add a third definition for cases like that outside of the two you've came up. Although I'm at lose as to what the definition should be. Just that the two you mention don't work for warehouses, if not other places currently tagged as being industrial when they clearly aren't. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, like everything listed below "Transportation & Warehousing Industry" they're not manufacturing -> thus not "man_made=works"/factories. I have two seperate tags for warehouses now on the page, "industrial=warehouse" for a company/warehouse which provides warehousing services for third-party customers (commonly found near ports), and "industrial=distributor" for warehouses operated by a company which uses it primarly to distribute their own products (such as Amazon/Walmart distribution centers). Those tags can be used on the warehouse building or the warehouse property. Hiausirg (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure that's the best way to go about it. For one I don't see how users are going to know that information to begin with. Or they just suppose to judge if a place provides warehousing services for third-party customers based on how close the building is to the ocean? Also, with places like Amazon and Walmart a lot of their business involves drop shipping, more with Amazon but Walmart does a lot to, which isn't their own products. So it's not really a useful distinction IMO. It also doesn't solve the underlining issue that most areas were warehouses are located aren't "industrial" anyway. Most of the time they are found in commercial areas surrounded by offices.

For such information, local knowledge or information on the website is needed. The industrial=* key which I propose is for the primary activity of a facility. Amazon fullfilment centers can also provide warehosing services for third parties, but it is clearly not the primary activity. Hiausirg (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Really, there is no such thing as an industrial building outside of factories. Which at least IMO we should just be mapping the warehouse buildings as building=warehouse and leave the broader landuse area to tagged other ways. Maybe with landuse=industrial if the warehouse happens to be in an area with factories, but at that point there's no need micro-map a separate landuse area just for the warehouse. Using industrial=* on buildings seems like an extreme edge case though since it's only like 5% of the usage and I don't think it should be encouraged. Especially in this case and if the only way to tell which industrial tag the person should use is by them judging how close the building is to ocean or calculating how many of their own products the warehouse sells. Like either one can be done in most cases to begin with anyway. Building=warehouse doesn't involve that kind of special math, research, or obscure knowledge to use. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Warehousing activities definitly fall under "industry". Every printed map which I've seen uses the same color for warehouses as for factories. Every US zoning map zones warehouses as "light industrial", not as "commercial" (rarely even as "heavy industrial"). And as someone who maps a lot of industry, I always had the general impression that warehousing belongs to industry, not commercial. There's nothing wrong with "building=warehouse", however it is a tag which describes the building type, not a POI. (Like building=church is not nessesarly an "church" - "amenity=place_of_worship" describes a church POI). I'm also not a fan of "industrial" directly on buildings, since an industrial facility always includes more than just a building, but I guess it's an option. I think an "industrial=" area should be used to tag the entire area which belongs to the facility (including parking etc). I don't think that's even close to "micro-mapping", when we have people mapping every single parking space, road marking or tree. the only way to tell which industrial tag the person should use is by them judging... - Like above, local knowledge is needed. To be clear again, there is nothing wrong with building=warehouse, this tag should be used for the building, and industrial= should be used for the POI. Hiausirg (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your leaving out actual usage of the tag from that and at least from what I've seen industrial=warehouse is (or at least was looked into it) being used predominantly in areas that looked to be commercial. It's fine if some mapped you looked at shows it as industrial, but at least IMO actual usage comes before that since there's already 6,082. You can't just come along and completely change how people are using tag or where it's being used because you looked at a map that fit your opinion once. Sure, I'll grant you that sometimes outside of that warehouse "activities" (whatever that means) sometimes fall under "industrial" (again, whatever that means). It really depends on the scale and where it's located though. A warehouse next to factory where the products are taken for storage across the parking lot on a fork are of course going to be in industrial areas. But again, that's not really how industrial=warehouse is being used.

The tag is mostly being used on non-descript warehouse buildings in areas that aren't full of factories. If you want an example there's this little area inside of a business park, that's next to retail shopping and across the street from a school and some apartment complexes. There's plenty of other examples out there. Essentially people are just mapping zones inside of landuse areas as industrial=warehouse even if the area isn't industrial "because warehouse." Which is clearly wrong. That inconsistency is exactly why I believe we should just be using building=warehouse since a warehouse is always a warehouse obviously, but it's not always located in an industrial area. At the end of the day we aren't suppose to be mapping landuse on a per parcel level anyway. So not only is the tag being used in places that aren't industrial to begin with, it's also being used to map on a level we are suppose to be using the tag, and those problems are inherent to the thing. So there's really no legitimate reason to use it over just mapping the buildings. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to industrial=warehousing and industrial=distribution. industrial=warehouse/distributor are often used, but we don't know how the people who used it defined those tags. (Just like the entire industrial=* key) Hiausirg (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thats why I think "industrial=*" should be independent of "landuse=industrial", to avoid problems like those. Most warehouses are located within industrial areas, just some aren't (rarely). The only alternative would be a) use some overused generic catch-all key such as "man_made=warehouse" or b) just don't tag it at all. I don't want to use industrial=* "over" building=warehouse - I think they should complement each other, I think they're different concepts - warehouse is not always warehouse. For example, many self-storage buildings i'm coming across are tagged building=warehouse - but they aren't the same as industrial=warehousing. Or a larger man_made=works factory with many buildings could have dedicated warehouse buildings for materials - they're also not the same as industrial=warehousing. Combinining building classifications with point of interest tags screams for problems. Hiausirg (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"I don't want to use industrial=* "over" building=warehouse - I think they should complement each other." That's fine, but there is the whole "One feature, one OSM element" rule. Maybe you can claim that your not violating by mapping the building and landuse separately, but I'd you still are because your inventing the existence of a landuse area that doesn't actually based on the existence of a warehouse. So your not really mapping separate elements. Like if I mapped a barn and then mapped a small area around it with landuse=barn I'm just using a different tagging scheme to map the same exact element. It's not actually a separate, distinct characteristic of anything around the barn though.

"The only alternative would be a) use some overused generic catch-all key such as "man_made=warehouse" or b) just don't tag it at all.}}" No the alternative would be to map the and not map the landuse because it's redundant and usually mapped with other tags anyway. You have a solution looking for a problem and are unwilling to admit there's zero benefit or reason to map the warehouse using a landuse tag. This isn't an actual problem though. There's no reason to map the landuse as warehouses. If anything it just comes at the cost of using the landuse tags that actually represent the area. Like with my example of the business park where half it mapped as landuse=warehouse. All that does is make people think the business park is smaller then it actually is. Otherwise what's your solution there so half the business park isn't cut off? Map an industrial area on top a commercial area?

"Template:Tq" You changed what to industrial=warehousing? I'm a little unsure what your talking about. Regardless, sure, we don't know how people defined those tags. But isn't just all the more reason not to use the tag to begin with? Things should be verifiable after all and we can't verify if something was mapped properly or still exists if we don't know how the current way it's mapped was defined to begin with. A tag should have a clear meaning to begin with and be verifiable by everyone. Not just the person who originally used it. I think it's pretty clear that something mapped with building=warehouse is a warehouse building, industrial=warehouse (or warehouses) doesn't actually convey any information about the area surrounding the building or even if the area contains warehouses to begin with. Like with the business park example, sure I might know that there are warehouses because of the area around them being mapped with industrial=warehouse, but I already knew that information because of the buildings being mapped as building=warehouse but now I don't know the area is part of a business park. So what's the actual benefit there to arbitrarily mapping the area around the warehouses as industrial=warehouse? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

To me, building=warehouse and industrial=warehousing are seperate real-world features: 1) the building and 2) the company within it.

"map the warehouse using a landuse tag" - I propose that "industrial" is explicitly NOT a landuse tag (if you mean that).

"I'm a little unsure what your talking about." The page explaining what I want to do and the assosciated list of possible industrial=* tags? I don't want to discuss how warehouses should be tagged into the tiniest detail, I want to create a reliable way to tag all kinds of industrial facilities, because a) such a way dosen't exist currently and b) the industrial=* key in it's current state is useless for anything. The values i've listed there are a possible scheme, which should cover basically every industrial facility, and they are NOT the core of what i'm proposing. I'm sure many of those values have issues, weather it be naming, definition, missing ones, too broadly/too narrow definition, whatever. But again: I'm not proposing special values for warehouses, I'm not formally proposing any values. I'm proposing a key definition, and the values listed on my page are there to better visualize that key definition.

Hiausirg (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be useful to divide the page into 2 sections:

- the keys that describe a landuse=industrial (then trying to list them together as in international classifications)

- keys describing equipment (which in an ideal world would have been Template:Keyman made such as grinding_mill)

this would be a step in the right direction towards better structuring documentation

Marc marc (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Changing namespace

@Tguen: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Key:industrial&type=revision&diff=2630818&oldid=2624180 While I don't agree with it either, I have moved it to a separate page. Or at least it should be a subpage. Proposal:Industrial land rewrite
—— Kovposch (talk) 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/wiki-page-for-key-industrial-has-been-completely-rewritten-was-this-discussed-or-voted-on/106875
—— Kovposch (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not documentation, but proposal

[1] I think that, first of all, this page of descriptions is too extensive, and secondly, it looks like a copy from some external source that categorizes industry types, not documentation of the tags used. Documentation on a Wiki should describe what is currently used, with commentary, not what "should" be used. Now there is a description of many tags that are not used even once in OSM - they shouldn't be here. And there are no descriptions of the values that are used - for example, no industrial=oil and industrial=factory. What is on this page is a proposal, and the proposal should be in proposals.

A type of industry is not the same as a product produced by a factory - that's what we have the product=* tag for. Currently, the types of industry, which should be at most a dozen, are not listed here, but the products produced by factories, and in great detail: for example, industrial=computer and industrial=computer_peripheral (one not used, the other one used 2 times). The definition says "type of industry" and "pasta" or "nuts" are not type of idustry. Types of industry are for example: film industry, automotive industry, petrochemical industry, pharmaceutical industry.

So I request to restore the previous version of the page, and not write your vision into the documentation, because that is not what the documentation is for. When I go to the key documentation, I would like to see a list of the most commonly used values. maro21 18:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

"too extensive" - sorry, the topic is complex.

"not documentation of the tags used": "any tags you like" dosen't work in something complex like that, and further, all values on my version exept one or two are used. Your claim of there being "many" is nonsense.

If you think industrial=oil and industrial=factory should be on the page, than add them?

"A type of industry is not the same as a product produced by a factory" - That's why industrial key exists. Have you even read the forum discussion? industrial=computer or computer_peripheral encompasses hundreds of products.

Anyway, I restored the first version, with the orginal definition - reverting all other, actually entirely undiscussed changes, many of which are way more far-reaching. Hiausirg (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That version is objectively terrible (is that the very first version of this page?!). It starts with poor "You can describing the type of industry using the tag industrial=*" and then lists a bunch of undefined and undescribed values.

I reverted to Special:PermanentLink/2652604 by Kovposch, as it seems reasonably grammatical, and lists actually used values supported by taginfo, with >500 instances each. I think it reasonably depicts the current state of affairs. I don't think it's the ideal state of affairs either, but let's at least have something that resembles reality.

We are not supposed to discuss every single change in the Wiki. But I do agree with most other posters that your version, while it did constitute improvement in some aspects, was tantamount to a proposal. Duja (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

? Both versions are terrible, but "You can describing the type of industry using the tag industrial=*" is actually somewhat understandable, with a defined scope (combined with examples). The definition you restored is entirely different, and a big mess, which has never been discussed. What you restored is a massive change in the key definiton, which needs discussion - what I did was expanding and sorting the list of examples, something which didn't change the way the key is used, and dosen't need large-scape discussion. Reverted to old version. Hiausirg (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Reminder that you can make a change as simple as changing one word in the definition, which can significantly change the way the key is used - and this change maybe even looks like +/- 0 bytes in the page history. You can also make a change, which looks like +60,000 bytes in the page history, which looks like a lot, but dosen't change the way the key is defined/used. Hiausirg (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

You're being childish now. I'm not married to that version either, but every single entry there was supported by >~500 entries in taginfo, so at least it has the virtue of documenting the reality. On the contrary, the Special:PermanentLink/2652571 version you last tried to introduce was listing entries with {8; 48; 34840; 176; 252; 3; 178; 2; 1; 18; 16; 2041; 12; 4; (many other single-digit) ...} instances. It's barely better than a random sample. When it was reverted, you keep on reverting to a 10-year old version because...? I'd suggest your read: Do not disrupt the wiki to prove a point. Duja (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You are the one who is edit warring and dosen't get the point. Once again: I'm not talking about the values here, i'm talking about the definiton you restored. This definition is absurd, dosen't represent reality, and hasn't been discussed anywhere. There is some throught ("some" being a 3/4 year, and years of extensive industry mapping) behind the lesser used values I have added, but I'm not going to explain it the 500th time to someone with absolutely no industry mapping experience who is seemlingly not interested in finding a productive solution, and edit wars instead. I reverted to the orginal definition. Hiausirg (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

If you think that the current definition is not the right one, then you can add another one underneath. There are many Wiki articles where several points of view are presented, and until one (or perhaps there is not just one) definition is established, there may be several in the article. See, for example, Tag:shop=motorcycle, where two ways of tagging are presented, and earlier there was an edit war where one user brought back one version. maro21 18:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Your preferred "definition" that You can describe the type of industry using the tag industrial=* is almost tautological, but there you go. At least one cannot complain that it is false.
As I said in the Community discussion, I would consider a productive solution if one prepares a proposal that documents the current reality based on taginfo statistics, presents a sensible tagging scheme we can all broadly agree on, and then proposes how we switch from here to there. Just proclaiming that industrial is a top-level tag (while in reality nobody uses it like that, and no data consumer understands it) does not cut it. Duja (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The values which were listed referred almost all to individual industrial facilities, so combined with that, the definition/scope of the key was pretty clear. Proclaiming that industrial is a top-level tag? I removed this statement long ago, and it was nowhere to be found in my last version which I restored.

Maro21: I see you rewrote the list of values. I think thats an overall positive change, but in it's current form ... it isn't really useful for much. You could just replace this list with a link to Taginfo - It would actually be better, because the numbers automatically update. I don't think the wiki should only show the current use, it should show something usable, which is in use too (and what I added is). For example: Most types of industrial facilities are not included in the list, so people will have to guess values, instead of using values with some existing definitons. industrial=gas (+probably natural_gas too) is formally deprecated by proposal, because it is very broad with unclear scope, yet it is prominently featured. industrial=oil might be by far the most used value, yet it is just as broad, and there was some consensus in the forum that it is a bad value.
I don't understand why we can't just add my value list to the page. Again, this list is not supposed to be "that's how things must be", it is supposed to be a rough guidance for industry mappers, a list of clearly defined and used values, which cover most types of facilities. (+Easily searchable for keywords, +links to real-world examples, +current usage) There was already a disclaimer saying that, and I have no issue with making that more prominent. I have no issue with adding some of the often used values, which are missing from the list, I have no issue with people adding their own values (if there is a somewhat plausible reason of course). A proposal is a bad idea at this point, as this whole key is in the earliest infancy, and with a extremely wide scope (millions of facilities all over the world), it needs to be somewhat "stable" before things can be set in stone. (And further, I'm here to map the world, mapping the perfect way of mapping is something other people can do better) Hiausirg (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

"You could just replace this list with a link to Taginfo - It would actually be better, because the numbers automatically update" - the numbers are from taginfo and will be automatically updating.

This table is just a starting point for further edits. Deprecated tags aren't marked yet. There are no descriptions for all of them. My editing was rather purely technical. I did not delve into the meanings of specific tags.

I also suggest discussing specific tags on their discussion pages, not here.

"this list is not supposed to be "that's how things must be" - of course, I agree. As I wrote, this list is just a starting point. maro21 22:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Let's discuss individual values on their discussion pages

The article is now protected from editing for 3 months. I suggest during this time:

• Create pages of missing tags (red links), describe and decide on their status: "in use" or "deprecated".
• Discuss on talk pages of individual tags about a particular tag.
• On this page discuss only in general, but not about individual tags. This will break up a large task into smaller parts. maro21 22:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)