Talk:Key:mass times

Why is an extra key needed?

As the headline suggests, why do you need an extra key? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not me that needed another key. The key was already in use. I visited a taginfo page which had no associated wiki, and I was invited to create one. As for the content being controversial, I disagree. Most of it is paraphrased from Wikipedia. There is no controversial content here. Therefore I removed the markup. The reason for wanting another key is explained in the summary. It is more specific than existing keys, and more recognized by a large percentage of the population. The key service_times is too general. Churches offer many types of services, and some events that cannot be classified as services at all. The wiki is chock full of keys that are more specific than others, and lots of important and useful keys started out with only a few instances.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxslinger (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't support a new top-level key. You can use eg service_times:main=*, furthermore generic than "mass" for Catholics to be used by other religions.

Only collection_times=*, smoking_hours=*, and happy_hours=* are separate, They are different enough to not fit service_times=*.

--- Kovposch (talk) 09:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. The world's widely varying belief systems all have very different events which cannot be classified as "services", and may object to them being called "services". And many would object to being lumped into a generic classification. Besides, if you peruse the tags listed on taginfo, the key service_times=* is being used from everything from to mail collection to rubbish collection. I think there should be specific keys for religious services. In any event, why should the world's major belief systems not have separate top-level keys? Major belief systems are a large part of society and really should be treated specially in my view. The problem is that everyone is doing these times a different way and I just picked one of them to create the wiki. That was my idea. I am sorry if some people took offense. So I am glad that a discussion has been started. I would like to see everyone doing it the same way. That would make it easier for people to find the information they need. --- Boxslinger

How do you tell from taginfo that service_times are also used for mailboxes. And if it were, you can change this directly to collection_times, because this would be an error. By the way, new keys should first be voted on before documenting an individual opinion in the wiki. We should agree on one of the two sides in order to continue the discussion uniformly User 5359 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the link referring to service_times:mail. https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/service_times%3Amail

It has nothing to do with religious service times. Neither do a lot of the other service_times keys. That's my point. Religious service_times should have their own classification. And in order to avoid offending anyone, religions should be allowed to have their own keys for their own varying events.. I do not agree with attempts to suppress some religious practices by lumping them into more generic classifications. But if that is acceptable to the majority of the community, then we can do it that way. I do believe that religions should be allowed to have individual wiki pages for their varying events, even if they have to be generically classified. --Boxslinger (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Yes I agree that everyone should agree. That's what discussions are for.

This was a six year old entry which falls under the point, if there is an obvious error it can be changed, if there is possible error it should be asked about. The entry no longer exists because I changed the three service_times:xyz values to opening_times:xyz. User 5359 (talk) 19:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@Boxslinger: I am not sure if we talk in the same terms. I would like to clarify some "definitions" first because I think there is some sort of misunderstanding here. The term "key" refers to the first part of a tag. Therefore, "a" and "a:b" are different keys. The status "in use" is not defined that precisely but it commonly refers to "the most common existing tag for a feature". As I can see from Taginfo, there seems to be one occurrence of this tag. As the key "service_times" seems to me identical to this key, I would say that it can not be considered "in use". Additionally, OpenStreetMap is a database, so when users want to query mass times/service times of churches for instance, they would currently query for "service_times" key and miss the single entry stored under "mass_times" key. Replying to your arguments:

It is more specific than existing keys

How is this more specific? Does the key refer to Western Christianity, Catholicism, or masses in churches (including orthodox ones)?

There is no controversial content here.

Controversial content in this wiki typically refers to content that still needs some discussion. The template is typically used to make readers aware of an ongoing discussion or different views stated at the talk page.

more recognized by a large percentage of the population

Well, I do not understand this statement. Who is this large percentage of population that supports this key, if it is used only once?

lots of important and useful keys started out with only a few instances

Of course every key was first used only once, and then twice and so on, because someone has to start it. When creating a new key, it is often useful to talk to other users who have often put some thoughts into tagging a specific subject. As User 5359 suggested, I would contact the tagging mailing list or even write a proposal to get in touch with others. Hope this helps. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@User 5339: Here is just a partial list of service_times sub-keys that are totally unrelated to religious services. Are they all errors? Are you going to change/remove all of them? service_times:url service_times:delivery service_times:website service_times:rubbish service_times:signed service_times:note service_times:atm service_times:bbq service_times:finance service_times:phone

My objective here is to get these keys picked up be data consumer apps such as OsmAnd etc. so that people can look at the app and locate religious events when needed. I think that would be very useful. That is why I created the wiki page. Keys are more likely to be used by mappers if there is a wiki page for it. And the more it is used by mappers, the more likely it will be utilized by data consumers in their apps. Right now, OsmAnd is picking up the key service_times=*, but I am not sure about sub-keys. But I will build an .obf file and find out. If sub-keys can be picked up by apps, that would be satisfactory and I could re-create the wiki pages with sub-keys instead. I do not understand the objection to new top-level keys. It's just text, and doesn't take up any more room on the server than a sub-key would. If someone could explain that, it would be helpful.

@Tigerfell: As I said before, I did not create the key. It was already in use. I am not going to go through the proposal process. Lots of keys catch on without it. If someone doesn't want to use the key, they don't have to. But it will be there in case they do want to use it.

--Boxslinger (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I know this may be provoking but: What would you do if I just change the one note that bears this key and then mark this page for deletion, because there is no occurrence of this key anymore? That sounds a bit simpler than documenting the key. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

@ Tigerfell: It's more than provoking. I think that removing tags that others have placed just because you personally don't agree with the content could be viewed as vandalism. I think you are using your power trying to suppress information about a particular religion because you don't agree with it. This type of behavior has no place on OSM in my view. Why don't you ask the mapper that placed that tag in the first place. Besides, there are more than one now. Check overpass turbo. Taginfo only gets updated once a day. What would I do? I would tag more places with that tag, and also tag some others with a subkey such as service_times:mass, and see which one started getting used the most. Then re-create another wiki page with that tag. I also intend to create more tags for different service types. That sounds reasonable to me. --Boxslinger (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I came across this wiki page because I stumbled over a typo on a quality assurance tool (see https://www.openstreetmap.org/changeset/117139869). Yes, and I am also looking for illogical keys (e.g. yes not to mention typos), but the list is very long and time is limited. I assumed until today that your wiki account Boxslinger is identical to the OSM account localfixerupper (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/localfixerupper), the only user who uses this key. If this is not the case, then it is rather vandalism of you towards the wiki to simply enter keys as "in use".

But let's stay objective. I will ask the user localfixerupper to join the discussion.User 5359 (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@User 5359 yes, I am localfixerupper, and that key WAS in use when I created the wiki page. But as you say, let's stay objective. According to taginfo there are currently 333 wiki pages for keys which do not have a single instance of being used. And yet they are allowed to stay up. Why? Are you going to delete all those pages also? Also according to guidelines, it is not vandalism to create a wiki page in anticipation of using a key. So even if I had done that, it would still be within guidelines. As for this page, take it down. I don't care any more. I'm tired of arguing about it. The guidelines also encourage people to use any keys they like. I will do that, and when they garner enough usage in the data, I will create different wiki pages.

It seems to me that the request for objectivity did not help. If you had read the pages of the corresponding report and followed the links, you would have seen that hardly any of the links lead nowhere (some are even directly marked as REDIRECT). The first two entries are also good examples of why your interpretation (everything must be deleted) should rather be marked as a misinterpretation. You have been asked to refrain from using new master keys and to use appropriate subkeys for better comprehension of all OSM users. This makes it easier to classify the meaning. My private request would be that you take into account the difference between opening_hours (period for free arrival) and service_times (start time of the service, individual arrival rather undesirable).