Talk:Trolltag
Page name/term too offensive?
The idea behind this page is great, too much additional tags have poped to change the original meaning, and explaining the problem with examples about data usage is great. But using the term "trolltag" is quite offensive and not really friendly (Though I find it fun and easy to remember, the goal of this page could be to link from problematic tag pages, and might not be warmly welcome with such a name !) . Would you mind if I change the page's name/title to make it more acceptable in that regard ? What about (few, I'm short on ideas) : Meaning changing tags ? any other ideas are welcome. sletuffe (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not opposed and not sure it is needed to find a less offensive name either. The term "trolltag" has been discussed in the mailing list quite hotly so it has a certain value as an easy to recognize term. Perhaps asking the osm-talk ml could help to find a friendlier name and also make people aware of the issue.
- The difficulty of saying something is a trolltag lies more in the exact circumstances: "end_date" is a problematic tag if not used with great care but there are enough cases where it can be used without any problem. RicoZ (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
- Whether intended or not, people do take offence when they see the term used. In the interest of more effective communication it'd make sense to use a different term. Perhaps "tagging 'false friends'" (as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_friend )? --SomeoneElse (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- "False friends" may also be considered offensive by someone not familiar with the term and the well defined meaning of it doesn't fit well here. Finding a better name is not quite easy... something describing the technical problem would be nice but would seem too lengthy for a title. "Treacherous Tags"? "False attribute"? RicoZ (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- How about "turnabout tags"? Since one key-value pair leads a data consumer to one understanding about the situation of the tagged feature, but another pair turns that about and leads to a different, in some way contradictory (rather than merely clarifying) understanding. And in this case, turnabout is not fair play... :) Arlo James Barnes (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
- "using the term "trolltag" is quite offensive" - for whom? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:49, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
"Proposed tags are a really poor idea..."
RicoZ, I know it took me five years to address this, but I must take issue with your "tags like proposed=yes are a really poor idea." The USBRS in OSM uses state=proposed in a controlled, deliberate way, with excellent results. Its use has good merits. Yes, "proposed" can be abused, but when its use is well-defined and used within parameters, it makes sense to both use it and render it. Stevea (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
Out of order
There needs to be a tag that says a e.g., drinking fountain, still very valuable as a landmark, is currently out of order, but has hopes of one day being repaired.
That way users could still find it on a map, but would know not to expect water.
It is different that one permanently broken.
OK, Key:operational_status#Values_in_use still has
operational_status=needs_maintenance operational_status=broken
I can use.
Jidanni (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- We have disused:amenity=drinking_water for "would know not to expect water" - and operational_status=broken is a problematic trolltag inferior to that solution Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)