User talk:DerBauer

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:landuse&diff=2231086&oldid=2231046 - here you claim restoring "cited factual information". Where this citation are present?

See also discussion on tagging mailing list - https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2021-December/063302.html Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

In https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:landuse%3Dmeadow&diff=2231084&oldid=2231038 you cite wikipedia (using Chrome-specific linking), but Wikipedia definitions are not deciding how OSM tags are used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Mateusz, It would be helpful if the discussion on the topic of farmland, farmyards and meadows was not in a semi closed environment of the tagging mailing list but on the discussion page of the item in question. I have now read the thread(s) you make reference to and have some queries over the items raised which would be good to discuss on an open forum, ie the discussion tab of the relevant tag.

Firstly my primary concern is that the map is as accurate as possible - and in turn that the hierarchy of tagging landuses is as accurate as possible. The map data and its classification system is a system like many others that incorporates hierarchy if used correctly, with landuse sitting above other types as it infers use, ownership and in turn access and privacy. The ground cover or final ‘look’ of what is on that landuse might be classed as a child of that item or a secondary element like crop=grass or natural=grassland. For example a field might be farmland as a landuse, but its final groundcover may be grass or other types of crop. It is also important for me to note that the map data and classification is distinctly separate from how it may be rendered on the many variations of map renderers using OSM data, mappers should not be mapping areas as grass because it will render green on a map but should be more concerned by the accuracy of the operation/ ownership of that land if they want the dataset of OSM to be of any use on a large scale. The data of the map should be given priority over the rendered intent of the map, or the way that different users around the world interpret the sometimes ambiguous terminology of the tagging.

The specific meaning of a ‘meadow’ was cited from wikipedia (apologies for the chrome specific citing method also) as clear reference to what an ‘agricultural meadow’ actually means and not what it colloquially means - colloquial terms should (again, in my opinion when trying to be accurate) be avoided, or at least noted for the regional disparities on the wiki page of that item so that mappers know what is to be understood/used in their area. An agricultural meadow is typically (in the UK meaning of the term) used for hay /haylage, or set aside area, not for grazing or pasture which also brings into question the tag for pasture (unless there is first-hand knowledge of the field being used as pasture this should not be used). It can also mean a grassland area of environmental protection for the promotion of biodiversity (one which I believe is the best use for this tag). For the avoidance of doubt, and to help mappers understand and not infer their own understanding on terms used in tagging the wiki page must be as clear as possible and include for the regional disparities (with cited references). If those references are on wikipedia, all the better because (again my opinion only) OSM should not be hiving itself off in the corner of the web but drawing on the knowledge shared across ‘open’ reference repositories like wikipedia, wikidata etc.

All these terms are also made slightly tenuous when tagging from aerial imagery, where the actual usage of the land has not been noted over months/years of site specific knowledge. A grass field area could be operated by a farm (farmland) as pasture for animals, but it also could be part of an environmental grant scheme to promote biodiversity and not be grazed, it could also be temporary cover crop to promote nitrogen sequestration and not be permaculture. Transitional crop systems would not be evident in one picture of aerial imagery, nor would ownership. I use the example of the UK again which is made up of 70% farm operated land which in turn is comprised of arable AND pastoral land. Where neither permaculture crop is known, or is unclear because of the snapshot of aerial imagery then the correct landuse tag should not be meadow, or pasture, or grassland or just grass. Where we can be specific about land operated by farms AND that the ground cover is grass, then landuse=farmland, crop=grass are the most accurate and descriptive tags to use to say that the land is owned/operated by a farm and that the groundcover is grass regardless of whether it is cut cropped, eaten in the field by livestock or is left untouched as set aside. These all need to be made reference to in the wiki page of farmland, not just reverted back to an old out of date version of the tag because a limited group of people on a mailing list don’t agree, don’t have experience/knowledge of, or haven’t defined what the actual meaning of that terminology is in their area or how it is to be used, NOT from how users choose to interpret and use that tag. The two are distinctly different.

My apologies Mateusz for the length of this reply, as you might be able to tell the subject is important to me. So finally how might the tagging mailing list users be informed to take part in the discussion on the discussion pages of the tagged items so that the range of viewpoints can be discussed with input from others with more specific knowledge on the subject matter please? I will for reference put this reply also under the discussion page for the landuse=farmland topic to hopefully kick start something there. I would really appreciate it if you were to respond linking in others on the tagging mailing list there please so that the subject can be discussed more fully.DerB (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

One important part is that OSM Wiki is rather describing actual tagging scheme in use, rather than ideal one. Yes, many part of existing tagging schema are unbelievably idiotic. There is Proposal process that is for "and that is how it should be", but changing meaning of well established tags by wiki decisions is not viable - if tag is sued some way millions of times then at most it can be deprecated as changing wiki description will not change how it is actually used Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Signing on wiki

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures (it is a Wikipedia help page but technical parts in general apply also here) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)