Talk:Tag:landuse=research

Use more common tags instead: office=research, amenity=research_institute

I would recommend mappers consider using more common tags instead, like office=research, amenity=research_institute, amenity=university, if it is appropriate. In some cases, such as corporate research facilities, landuse=commercial may also be correct. --Jeisenbe (talk) 04:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Think @Cheeto: might want to think about tagging educational or even institutional land-use instead. These sites often host multiple organizations (thus need separate amenity=* or office=* objects), or have a specific area within for such work. -- Kovposch (talk) 07:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed many research_institutes are currently mapped on a landuse=commercial. I too see no specific value in having a landuse=research tag. It there are several adjacent institutes, they should be mapped and named individually.--Polarbear w (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am unaware about cases where this new landuse value would be useful and data would not benefit by replacing by more widely used tags Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Research= key as a subtag?

Jetpack added a table of in-use values for research=*, but the most common values for that tag are "computer_science" and "yes", and only half of the features have a landuse= tag (amenity= and office= are more common). Perhaps someone can make a page for Key:research after investigating how that tag is being used, instead of adding the table here? --Jeisenbe (talk) 05:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

research=* created as suggested, however I think it fits only to the specific institutions and not on the landuse, which is questionable anyway. --Polarbear w (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Status

Hi @Mateusz Konieczny: I had the following two considerations when making the change: 1) Simple separation of whether there is a proposal or not. 2) How can we evaluate when a tag is "in use" and when it is "proposed" (for the cases where there is no written proposal)? I find this difficult to impossible. – Actually, with many very little-used tags, I also tend to indicate something else instead of "in use" that tells the user to take a closer look here to see if not another tag is more widespread. I just don't know how. The elimination of "draft" and "undefined" has made it quiet difficult, in my opinion. --Chris2map (talk) 07:51, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

"The elimination of "draft" and "undefined" has made it quiet difficult, in my opinion." - hm, if there is some case where these are useful we can bring them back? @Chris2map: Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"How can we evaluate when a tag is "in use" and when it is "proposed" (for the cases where there is no written proposal)?" - usage count, taking into consideration feature type? like between "in use" and "de facto"? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

"like between "in use" and "de facto"" - That is the remnant, so to speak. I was hoping it would stay with one case. But this tag fits or doesn't fit to several status: It is used, but not really established. It is some kind of proposed or drafted. And it is close to deprecated, see tag history. In fact, reviving the draft status won't be of much help here. It is kind of isolated. So we could stay with (informally) proposed; it at least corresponds with the description on tag status. --Chris2map (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)