User talk:Geozeisig

Archiv

Changing status' of tags

Hi. I noticed you've been changing the status' of some in use tags to de facto lately. Do you mind if I ask why your changing them and what your basing the change in status' on? Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

For de facto it is said: "the tag is in widespread use, it was not approved in a proposal process, it has a widespread acceptance among mappers". See also: Tag_status --geozeisig (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware of what the article says. I just wanted to know your personal opinion since your the one changing the status'. I guess it mostly comes to down to what makes something "in use" versus "de facto." Like you look at the article the way it describes "in use" tags could apply to all the ones you changed. Like with office=association, it was been "in use" for six years until you changed it. I guess we could maybe say it's de facto now because of the numbers, but then the article says that some in use tags are very common, but somewhat debated. I'm not going to claim office=association is somewhat debated, but there is some overlap with it and club=*. Either way, I'd like to know what exactly made you decide in that case to change it despite the status being the same for six years and more generally how are you deciding if a tags status should be changed or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I could not commit to an exact number from when a feature earns the status de facto. There are features that are common and others are rare. But the number of > 23000 for office=association is already much. You could write a proposal for a lot of things and get the status approved, but that won't work in many cases because of too low turnout. The status de facto is very similar to the status approved, it has been confirmed here by a large number of the applications. Of course, the tag should not be controversial. If you have the impression that office=association is controversial, we should clear it up. --geozeisig (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Since status draft is no longer used with tag descriptions and a lot of tags have got status in use, I support changing to de facto for widespread tags. In the absence of a fixed regulation, the assignment cannot be made without a personal assessment at the moment. My personal criteria (if I should name which one) are more or less: usage (several thousands, in the majority of cases >10,000), age (tag is used for years, about 4 or more), not blatant controversial at first glance. --Chris2map (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Both of your suggestions for what makes something de facto seem reasonable. I've seen a couple of times where the status of a tag was changed to de facto even though the usage was extremely low just because it was the only tag that served that particular purpose, which I don't think would qualify. Something like >10,000 uses over X amount of years and the tag not being controversial seems fine though. I just don't want to see people trying to turn tags with extremely low usage and half-baked articles into the standard by arbitrarily changing their status'. Not to say your doing that Geozeisig, but there's a discussion on the community forums related to that. So I thought I'd ask. Personally, I'd love to see more fixed standards for this stuff. Otherwise, it kind of negates the usefulness of even having them in the first place. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

rejected (status)

Hi Geozeisig, what is your opinion with status rejected? I wanted to correct the status for Tag:site=piste and it's data item, and then stumbled on two different edits from you: 1)Tag:amenity=training 2)Tag:site=piste In both cases the proposal was rejected. But you set one tag to rejected and one to in use. - I'm generally quite at a loss with the assignment of a tag status. However, I would also assign the first case to in use at the moment. Actually, there should be something like "in use with rejected proposal". --Chris2map (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not see a connection between the two I will rather look at each case individually.

At Tag:site=piste there is a proposal from 2014, which is also a few years ago. There are now over 1100 applications (chronology). I also take this as a vote. And on openskimap.org the ski resorts are displayed (This is what caught my eye and I came across the theme). The ski resorts can be displayed only by relations with site=piste. Furthermore, there is no other feature that conflicts with it.

Tag:amenity=training Training is a very general term. It can mean different things. In the paragraph See also you can find features that are more suitable. I have not found a case that should not be replaced. Perhaps this should be better highlighted on the wiki page.

Did you see that Key:site_type was changed from status deprecated to de facto? --geozeisig (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC) translated with deepl.com/translator --That was a covert rollback to Nov. 2022 I don't want to get involved. Chris2map (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

abandoned:landuse

Hi, here you added an example with abandoned:landuse=quarry. I don't think this is a good example as it violates Good_practice#Don't_map_historic_events_and_historic_features, a better example picture would be showing still obvious remnants of the mining operation, as shown under abandoned:landuse=*. -- Jonathan Haas (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Gute Idee. Es war nicht so leicht, etwas Passendes zu finden. Aber deinen Vorschlag finde ich auch gut.--geozeisig (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Änderungskommentare zu Status

Ich bitte sehr darum, bei Änderungen eines Tag-Status dies bzw. den Begriff status im Änderungskommentar zu erwähnen. Das würde mir helfen, nicht erst die Änderungen durchklicken und vergleichen zu müssen, sondern direkt in der Versions-Liste zu sehen, ob und wann eine Statusänderung vollzogen wurde. Darüber würde ich mich freuen! --Grüße, Chris2map (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Tag-Status kann ich in Zukunft angeben. Wenn aber mehrere Änderungen gemacht wurden, kann ich nicht jedes einzeln beschreiben. Ich kann nicht 10-Finger schreiben. Warum aber der Status von den Sprachen unterschiedlich sein können, ist mir neu. Zumal englisch die Hauptseite ist. --geozeisig (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Danke! Eine Möglichkeit ist, die Status-Änderung als einzelne Bearbeitung zu speichern und andere Änderungen separat im Voraus oder Anschluss zu tätigen und zu speichern. Aber ich denke "status changed" oder auch nur "status" ist auch bei größeren Bearbeitungen immer noch mit angebbar.

Zu unterschiedlichen Status: Es ist lediglich meine Annahme, dass es einige Nutzer gibt, die bei einem Tag, der nur in einem Land vorkommt, nicht von einer weiten Verbreitung sprechen würden. "De facto" steht aber, soweit ich es verstehe, für eine weite Verbreitung. Innerhalb des einen Landes (im Beispiel ist es Deutschland) ist die Verbreitung natürlich weit, aber OSM ist immer auch global zu betrachten. --Chris2map (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Image replaced because too large?

Hi, I've noticed that you are replacing high resolution images on the Wiki with low resolution ones. Your comment is "Image replaced because too large". I'm curious, why does that matter? Osmuser63783 (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The download time is much longer from the net. See also image_size#large. If you find a better example, fill free to change. --geozeisig (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks but are you sure that this is actually a problem? Take for example this image. It's very big, 7,360x4,192px and over 20MB. I can see that the OSM wiki stores multiple versions of this image, in different resolutions. Yet, when it’s embedded in an infobox, for example, like here, it loads very quickly because the version of the image that the Wiki actually loads is this one which is only 200x133px and 14KB. It seems that the Wiki software is smart enough to figure out that the browser doesn’t need to load the full size version of the image, and it resizes the image server-side, so the browser only downloads the smaller version. Therefore I am surprised to see that Taginfo claims that big images are a problem. When / where does it actually result in a long download time when OSM wiki pages use big images? Osmuser63783 (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Du hast recht, ich hab es ausprobiert, es wird nur ein verkleinertes Bild geladen. Ich bin inzwischen aber auch schon beim übernächsten Thema.

Translate with DeepL You're right, I've tried it, it only loads a smaller image. In the meantime, I've already moved on to the next topic but one.--geozeisig (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion of changes to "amenity=fuel" page

Hello, just in case you're not aware, the change that you made at https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:amenity%3Dfuel&diff=1948516&oldid=1946839 is being discussed at https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/amenity-fuel-highway-service-with-or-without-service-driveway/108051 . SomeoneElse (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

holding_position:type

Hallo, du hast eine englische Seite auf eine deutsche weitergeleitet (Key:holding_position:type). Versehentlich oder aus welchem Grund? Gruß, Chris --Chris2map (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Da musste noch eine weitere deutsche Seite angelegt werden. Jetzt (morgen) sollte es klappen. Danke für den Hinweis --geozeisig (talk) 09:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

bunker silo

Gude :)

ich stolpere gerade darüber, dass ich in Erinnerung hatte, dass bei Fahrsilos laut Wiki die einzelnen Wände mit hinein sollen. Jetzt mach ich seit ewigkeiten mal wieder ein Silo guck auf die Seite und wunder mich, ob mein Gedächtnis nachlässt. Wenn ich das wiki richtig bediene war der Abschnitt von Beginn an (ca. 2016) bis du ihn gelöscht hast, drin. Hat sogar die proposalphase unbeschadet überstanden.

Falls du der Meinung bist, dass dieser nicht unerhebliche Abschnitt nicht in den Artikel soll, wäre ich jetzt neugierig, warum.

Grüße

Silversurfer83 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ich kann mich natürlich nicht mehr erinnern, ist ja auch schon ein bisschen her. Ich weiß aber auch nicht, um welchen Abschnitt es geht. Vielleicht ergänzt du was fehlt einfach. --geozeisig (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

why?

why you removed mention of natural=grassland in https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dgrass&diff=prev&oldid=2494435 ? (I added it back now)

mentioning landuse=grass was a good idea (and I preserved it) but removing mention of natural=grassland should have been at least mentioned in edit description

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In the version from 26. Januar 2023 there war an ambox "Please use natural=grassland when possible." The deprecated form says the same thing, only stricter. natural=grassland is used a multiple of natural=grass. And natural=grass is not to be rendered. You should use landuse=grass instead. --geozeisig (talk) 06:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

In https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Tag:natural%3Dgrass&diff=2494435&oldid=2470268 you removed "Please use natural=grassland when possible.}}" and you version had only mention of "landuse=grass"

"natural=grass is not to be rendered. You should use landuse=grass instead" - lack of rendering is not a valid reason here. And note that natural=grassland and natural=grass is not the same tag, so whether natural=grass is rendered or not does not influence natural=grassland Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

"lack of rendering is not a valid reason here." I realise that already. But what is the definition of natural=grass and how does it differ from natural=grassland or landuse=grass?