Talk:Key:lunch

Please add your opinion and experience here

delivery/takeaway=only

This is just an idea: if meals can not be eaten on premises, but they are only offered for takeaway/delivery, it is probably enough to tag the times with delivery=*, and there would be no benefit of adding an extra lunch=*. --Bkil (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Food to take away? You can use takeaway=yes --RoGer6 (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is commonly possible to take away a lunch menu offering, we can tag it with takeaway=yes. (Actually, 99.5% of venues offer takeaway around here, so I never map it) What I meant above is that I know a place that could be mapped as takeaway=only, delivery=Mo-Fr 11:00-13:00. Because you can not sit down to eat, it is not a dining POI in the regular sense that you would like to frequent, so adding lunch=* may or may not be feasible. Although, if they are open all day long and offer a special lunch offer, it could make sense. I'm undecided as of now. -Bkil (talk) 10:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

My new proposal is to introduce lunch:menu:takeaway=yes/no/only and lunch:menu:delivery=yes/no/only. I've now found a restaurant which only offers a lunch menu for takeaway (and with lunch:menu:subscription=only). It is also possible to find delivery-only variants as well. Both takeaway-only and delivery-only can be set at the same time. This would mean that you could either take away the meal or get it delivered, but you can not eat it in place. Bkil (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

lunch=only

Would it make sense to apply lunch=only to an amenity=pub which neither offers a' la carte, nor does it operate a kitchen out of lunch hours? Some apply food=no to pubs lacking a kitchen, while others try to signal this simply by ommitting cuisine=* or giving cuisine=no, however a pub that offers lunch could plausibly have cuisine=* specified, hence some other signaling should be used.

I now see that opening_hours:kitchen=* is much better suited for this task. For such a pub, it needs to be set to the same time range as given for lunch hours. Bkil (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

lunch:menu:abo=yes/no

RoGer6, what does 'abo' stand for? How is it different compared to `lunch:menu:subscription=yes/no/only` Bkil (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, Sorry. That needs to be adjusted. I take care of it. RoGer6 (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Feel free to propose additions to this draft. I was just curious. It would be great if we could envision what kind of data consumers could exist in the future and what properties they could find use in. Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

For example, it occurs to me sometimes that I need to describe a few attributes in prose, so more structured tags are always welcome. Do you think it would be useful if we could specify whether a full week needs to be subscribed in advance or if it is possible to subscribe for a subset of days? Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Many venues give a discount if you provide your own food container as an eco-minded measure, similar to owncup=*. Should we tag this? Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, I regularly encounter that they stress that subscribing for the next week is only possible up until Friday (or Thursday). At other places, they declare that you need to subscribe for lunch before 11:00 the previous day, for example, if you'd like to eat on Wednesday, you need to phone in before 11:00 on Tuesday. At present I don't have a good suggestion for this one other than typing it in prose in lunch:menu:subscription:description=*. Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes they specifically state that subscribing is possible only via e-mail or via phone. This may be conveyed by something like lunch:menu:subscription:email=* and lunch:menu:subscription:phone=*. Bkil (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Mass removal of the description

We are discussing it with the editor, please wait a bit before translating the new version. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User_talk:Jeisenbe#Mass_removal_in_Key:lunch -Bkil (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Could you please take some time to explain why you removed so much from the lunch article? I think in order for the concept to really go through, we need to provide much more context. There exist various articles that are much longer and much more elaborate. If you still think something should be refactored, it is polite to ask on the talk page first and/or to move content to the talk page instead of simply deleting it. -Bkil (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Also the whole article has been translated to various languages, and many of these paragraphs are needed to explain some of the concepts that may or may not be universal across cultures. I'd rather have most of the information restored, although you are welcome to do some copy/editing and improving to content as you desire, especially if you are a native English speaker. -Bkil (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Please add back anything that is needed to understand how this key is used in openstreetmap. However, I believe the current concise definition should work: "Lunch is a meal offering around midday." And this tag says whether a feature offers lunch. What do you think is missing? --Jeisenbe (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Not to high jack the conversation, but I agree with what Jeisenbe removed. Most of it was overly descriptive of what lunch is and based on personal opinion. Which could just dealt with by linking to a Wikipedia article. Things like "Trying lunch offerings could be a good and inexpensive way of testing various restaurants when on the budget" don't really contribute much to the article or help people with tagging better. Although, yes some articles are long their content is at least relevant to tagging or are descriptive of something. Like, "A park is in semi-natural state with grassy areas, trees and bushes." Articles should be written like that, in an encyclopedic manor. Not in the style of a personal blog post or opinion piece. Which is how the cut out content was written.--Adamant1 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Could I ask who you discussed your changes with and that you please invite me to these channels as well? Bkil (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Are there any specific changes that are a problem? I am happy to discuss them here, and fix any mistakes that I made. In general, the old page text was like a detailed proposal. It would be perfectly fine to copy that into Proposed_features/Key:lunch or another location. This page, like all Key: pages, should be an easy-to-read, short description of how the tag is actually used. See Wiki_guidelines: "Keep pages short, use simple language and avoid jargon." ... "Tagging recommendations should ideally match actual tagging practice" ... "Proposals and proposed changes to tagging are the exception to this rule. They must however be clearly be identified as proposals" and also Wiki_guidelines#Introduction. --Jeisenbe (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I created https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Key:lunch with all the content, though it needs some work: it's not clear what values of lunch=* were proposed. Should we use lunch=buffet/menu or lunch=<opening_hours>? Maybe that can be clarified. --Jeisenbe (talk) 12:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd stick to yes/no and maybe buffet, but there's a buffet tag. Although, it only has 35 uses. So, who knows on that one. With menu there's a lunch:menu tag that has 200 uses. Which is twice as much as lunch=menu. Also, all the side created namespace tags that are only semi-related should stay out of it for the time being. The one thing I'm not sure on is using the tag for hours. While I feel like there's better tags for that and this should just be a simple yes/no tag, but it seems like that's how users want to use it. So..I guess it depends on what specifically the tag is for. Hours should be tagged with an hours tagging scheme though. Otherwise, it's not intuitive and causes fragmentation. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Jeisenbe, you still did not answer my question. Could you please share where you have discussed your actions? Was it maybe some mailing list message that I miss? The proposal process is not the only way to extend the schema. We have been using this tag for years now and we don't see any problem with it. Why did you feel that you need to make a change? What benefit does it add that you remove the rationale? You can see in Adamant1's answer that it now causes more confusion without the exact definitions. You specify the kind of lunch offers available. If a restaurant offers a menu, you add lunch=menu. If it offers unlimited buffet lunch, you add lunch=buffet. If it offers both, you add lunch=menu;buffet. Then you can detail when they serve lunch with lunch:menu=Mo-Fr 12:00-13:00. Also removing description wording is one thing, I don't find it very thoughtful of you to cut out the description of key that see such widespread use (or any at all). -Bkil (talk) 19:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I think he answered it adequately and in a fair enough way. Its generally assumed that most wiki stuff is dealt with within the wiki system. It would be ridiculous if we had to discuss changes to individual articles on a mailing list before making them and this is the proper place to hash out disagreements between editors. Not the tagging mailing list or whatever. Also, everyone agrees that not every single possible tag variation should be listed in article and its 100% the correct thing to do to remove ones like lunch:menu:course:drink that only have 11 uses. Maybe the key lunch has been used for a few years now, but that doesn't mean everything with the word "lunch' in it is suddenly acceptable to use or suggest, because "lunch." So, the proper thing to do IMO would be to either state exactly what part of his edit you have a problem with instead of making non productive sweeping statements or let it go. You could also try adding back what you think should be there in a clearer way that doesnt involve every possible thing related to lunch. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I think I have stated my issue clearly: I'd like to see all tags that we have introduced back many years ago listed at the same place. It is not up to me to ensure that everyone uses every possible tag, but who are you to judge which of the introduced tags you wouldn't like to see anymore? Interfering with mapping practice is a tagging list question indeed. We sometimes discuss major wiki changes there as well. Surely you're trying to play down the importance by listing the key that has the lowest usage, but see lunch:menu:url that is used 68 times and there are some others as well. If we introduced a preset and an interface to easy lookup and addition, I'm sure these numbers would go up sharply. -Bkil (talk) 10:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Your clarity has nothing to do with it. Although your not being clear about this. Your the one that added lunch:menu:course:drink in October 2018. That isn't really "back many years ago." Nor does it seem like there was a "we" involved in you adding it like your claiming there was. Since you said in your changeset comment that you got it from TagInfo. You claiming otherwise isn't "clarity." Where was the discussion when you originally added it? Because I don't see one here. Or should the discussion only take place when people remove what you added but you don't have to discuss what your adding before doing so? Also, If I can't judge what I wouldn't like to see anymore, then who are you to judge what everyone else besides you should see?

A tag with only 11 uses, even after being listed in the article for 2 years, can't be rightly be called "introduced" to anything or anyone in any meaningful way either. I'm not picking that example to play down anything, but to push back against your whole "all or nothing" approach to this. Maybe a few things Jeisenbe deleted might be worth restoring, but not everything is like your treating it. Especially not just because "that's how it was and I say to restore it!!." Which is your only argument. Fine, there's the whole "if there was a preset for it..." thing. That argument could be made for including anything. There has to be a better standard then "it's worth listing because it exists" or "it would be worth listing if there was a preset for it. So let's just list it now even though there isn't one." Seriously. Not to mention the title of the section it was in was called "Some further consideration for possible extra tags (better names welcome)." Which is in no way a solid tagging scheme that should be recommended anymore like it's legitimate. Maybe listed in a proposal, but that's it. Everything out there is a "possible extra tag." --Adamant1 (talk) 10:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So we've been mapping this for some time, well before you came, and I started documenting it on 19th November 2016. We've been documenting what has been used continuously, as dictated by OSM best practice. This facilitates people working together towards mapping the same things the same way. You've again grabbed a single example that is more recent than the majority of the tags - this again is a pretty weak debate technique. We've been collaborating with RoGer6, Chrabros, Lenochod and the Hungarian mapping community. We have followed all norms (at the time) with our mapping practice. We were careful not to interfere with the mapping activities of others and to follow schema best practices, but please do share it if you know otherwise and we will adjust immediately. We have documented to the best of our knowledge. Hence I feel that the burden of proof lies on those who wants to hijack the lunch=* as used originally and "deny" the use that we have been doing up to now. If you are coming from a country where lunch menu is not a thing, I don't feel it appropriate that you want to play judge in such a serious question. At a minimum, you need to do your careful research. I wish we could have spent this wasted time arguing with constructive mapping instead. Also, I sincerely hope that you answering a question addressed to Jeisenbe and in general editing quite similar things doesn't implicate that you are a sock puppet. -Bkil (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Then again we might consider resending this whole key in as a proposal, but do understand that it is a great undertaking. What justifies this effort? -Bkil (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't use the examples you think are appropriate. I must have missed the memo about how your in charge of what's discussed and dictate what's a valid argument or not. My bad. Anyway, it's called an example. Examples aren't an exhaustive list and I never claimed otherwise. I could pick any tag that was deleted by Jeisenbe and most of them would have the same issue, extremely low or no usage. So if you don't like my example, just pick another one because it's not going to be any different. Lunch:menu:course:dessert has never been used. lunch:menu:price only has 29. lunch:menu:course:drink and lunch:menu:subscription only have 11. Which one out of those would have proved your right instead of just me picking and choosing if I had of used them as examples and which one have "we" been mapping forever? The one with zero uses? What about the two with 11? Which one of those has been "used continuously" enough (whatever that means) that you think Jisenbe should revert himself over?

No one is stopping your local community from mapping things together the same way and no one is hijacking the lunch tag. We are simply saying there is a standard for which tags are included in documentation and which aren't. "Any tag you like" and "Just Map" doesn't mean document everything. Even tags your not actually mapping. Feel free to use whatever tag you want on your own time though. I could care less and I'm pretty sure Jeisenbe doesn't either. This has nothing to do with that though. You must not have read "Document your custom-tags" before you referenced it, because it completely contradicts your whole argument. "Please do not use the map features section of the wiki for this (including all pages where the URL starts with //wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key as these are the community endorsed tagging recommendations reserved for well established tags with significant usage." Is this a key article? I think it is...So, should we list tags with zero usage that have never been used? No we shouldn't. That's not me being a judge of anything. That's just what the guideline that you cited says. Facts, no sock puppetry needed. Get over it and move on. Go list your zero usage tags in a proposal or your user space. I could really care less. The article isn't the place to list them though. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I only document tags that I myself use or which has been asked by others. lunch:menu:course:dessert=* has 33 uses, but thanks for caring. Anyway, it would be a silly thing to only list keys in a proposal which have already got thousands of uses, wouldn't it? I still didn't quite get it what triggered you, but I think we will now never know. Also, I understand that keys and tags can't be "owned" by an individual. I regularly document established tagging conventions that are used by others around the globe if they have a large enough usage fraction and/or are sane. I do such data mining as a public service even for things I don't care that much about. The community believes in that if you don't document something, people will randomly come up with conflicting schema, fragmenting people instead of aligning efforts (even this happens accidentally from time to time with accepted proposals after some years). What if we joined forced instead of keep on fighting? -Bkil (talk) 14:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Except you aren't using the tags your documenting. There's reason to be dishonest about it. This stuff is easily proved and disproved. == Mass removal of the description ==