Template talk:Relations

Non-established relations

This template is most prominently linked on Types_of_relation#Established_Relations. In my opinion, this makes it pretty clear that this template should not contain proposed relations, but only those which are established (i.e. widely used by mappers and applications alike). A relation type such as "superroute" with just 246 uses is far below that threshold. --Tordanik 12:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion - see this is exactly the problem here, you don't use it, you can't see a reason why 246 usages actually is an expression for a widely used tag in this case. Instead of confronting it may be a community thing to shift some gears down and rethink, i.e. How many different mappers made use of this tag?, May the usage count actually be high enough and above a sensible threshold in relation to the potential usage of this tag?, Is it just my threshold I'm evaluating against?, etc. pp. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 13:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason you gave for your revert was "as long as they are used within the database, they should be documented here". That's most definitely not a good rule for a list of established(!) relations.

Now whether a given relation is established or not is not as easy to answer. In the case of the superroute relation, I've brought that up on DE talk:Relation:superroute. Sure, a low number can be countered by other factors, such as widespread application support, a successful proposal, etc. So please show me the supporting factors. --Tordanik 13:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who introduced superroutes, so I shall not be put in a position to defend them. But I see you have not done enough research to support your argument of them being not established, which seems to be solely your point of view as of now. Also there is some logic behind having both, route_master and superroutes in their current incarnation, which is destroyed by not having either one or the other. Considering the number of different mappers using this tag alone, there is no justification for a removal by a single contributor.

See also DE_talk:Relation:superroute where you started a second discussion on the same issue (German) where I've tried to leave a more comprehensive list of reasons to consider. I might err, but weren't you most active with the 3D/4D stuff which probably will be unfinished like the most of OSM for years to come? The issue of routes/superroutes should not interfer with that at all, imho. :) --Cmuelle8 (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why is this a template?

I undertand that templates are helpful when a table like this is used on a large number of pages. But this table is only linked to Types_of_relation and no other page in English. (See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Relations ). I will remove the template from Types_of_relation and instead replace it with the content of this page. --Jeisenbe (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing this, but I see there's still a lot of template parameter syntax left (the various bits like {{{name| }}}, {{{multipolygon:typ| }}} etc.). I guess these should be cleaned up now that it isn't a template anymore. --Tordanik 16:20, 24 March 2020 (UTC)