Hi all,
Just wondering what we should do with “dead” wiki pages, i.e., pages for deprecated tags that have no uses in the OSM database.
Example: amenity=life_ring
Seems a bit redundant to keep the page alive but perhaps we shouldn’t delete entirely? How about turning it into a redirect to the recommended key instead (in this case emergency=life_ring)?
Thanks!
It is still marginally useful: can be linked from old discussions, present in old object versions, someone may try to use it anew.
And there is no real benefit from deleting/redirecting them.
Just a reference to a relevant current page would be best, I think. The zero usage tells a lot.
Hi,
I think that wiki pages about tags being out of use (but being used in the past) should be kept. You can add an {{Ambox}} templete (see its documentation) [1] to the top of that page describing briefly that it is out of use and maybe why (+ link to its replacement).
Please keep in mind that OSM has an editing history. Some people (few but more than zero) use that data. The older OSM becomes, there more useable old historic OSM data becomes when OSM was useable in that area in that time. For example, I sometimes use historic OSM data in Karlsruhe (where I live) to answer questions about traffic policy.
People using historic OSM data will be happy to find documentation about the tags used by mappers back then.
Best regards
Michael,
who exports historic shape files for people who ask for “historic” data
[1] I don’t know if there is a more specific template for deprecation.
Sometimes people use {{Historic artifact start}} and {{Historic artifact end}} for outdated concepts, etc. It will add a brownish background to the page, which doubles as a visual hint that the information may be outdated (example: Xapi - OpenStreetMap Wiki)
I haven’t seen this being in used for tags, though. I found one example via the respective Historic artifacts category:
My thinking was it saves a user who stumbles on that page another click to the more widely accepted tag. But appreciate it’s a marginal benefit.
But concensus does seem to be to keep as a page.
Turning the page into a redirect would still keep the page’s history right?
Hi,
It keeps the history but removes the contents from search. For tags, I prefer them to have them in the wiki search.
Best regards
Michael
A similar case is zero usage possible synonyms. Another user recently has removed these and when I restored them (as it is still a machine readable reference for a possible synonym, and it can prevent people in the future from creating tags that may be ambigous or confusing) my revert was reverted again. I tried to discuss it, but ultimately gave up because I didn’t have the time to go into an edit war and did not care enough for documentation of unused tags.
I have a strong dislike for the “possible synonym” template because the page of the correct tag is the wrong location for big red warning boxes about how some other tag is problematic.
Please let us at least remove them once the problem is fixed.
I would remove those too, in all honesty. They really do seem redundant to me if there are no longer any “mistakes” in the database.
That seems unlikely to me. To see those “possible synonyms” you need to be on the “correct” tag’s page anyway. So, if you are, why would you then create a different tag for the same thing? (and if you did, would a red box at the bottom of the page really stop you?)
Haha. A valid point! 
The suggestion that you tried to discuss it is laughable at best. All you did was leave a message on my talk page telling me what to do and then continued reverting me while ignoring the multiple messages I wrote saying I was willing to meet you halfway and not remove certain ones as long as there was some kind of standard for when it was OK or not. You just dodged out the second I didn’t just acquiesce and gave you mild pushback. That’s not discussing things.
That’s my thinking. Another thing is that existence of the whole “possible synonyms” section of articles in the first place encourages people to add tags that are used in extremely minor edge cases, but have no possibility of being outside of that by the wider community. For instance one of the possible synonyms that I removed and @dieterdreist reverted was from a single editor who an un-discussed mass edit in 2018 and then the tag wasn’t ever used outside of that by the wider community. You could maybe argue that it would be worth documenting in an article somewhere, but I don’t think such a case would need to permanently be mentioned in a “possible synonyms” section of the de-facto tags article once it’s gone down to zero.
There’s also a lot one off miss-spellings that were done by a single user and therefore aren’t worth having in a “possible synonyms” section of an article either. Not because they don’t currently have usage or haven’t been used if the usage is now zero, but because they aren’t “possible synonyms” of the tag. So there should be a line somewhere. IMO that line should be at a certain amount of sustained usage over a specific period of time by multiple users. Not just one off mass-edits that have zero chance of ever happening again or some rando accidently hitting the wrong key on their keyboard a few times.
dieterdreist:
it can prevent people in the future from creating tags that may be ambigous or confusing
That seems unlikely to me. To see those “possible synonyms” you need to be on the “correct” tag’s page anyway. So, if you are, why would you then create a different tag for the same thing? (and if you did, would a red box at the bottom of the page really stop you?)
the case at hand was a leisure=swimming_pool and the possible synonym was amenity=pool.
If I were about to invent amenity=pool (for whatever purpose or kind of pool, not necessarily a swimming pool), I would search the wiki and when there is a possibile synonym I would find it and be discouraged, when it is deleted I would not find it.
Maybe it’s just me but if you do a search for “water=swimming_pool”, which is currently a possible synonym of leisure=swimming_pool, nothing comes up in the search results. So people aren’t going to find it from a search regardless of it’s listed in the leisure=swimming_pool article or not. The same goes for amenity=pool.
Maybe it’s just me but if you do a search for “water=swimming_pool”, which is currently a possible synonym of leisure=swimming_pool, nothing comes up in the search results. So people aren’t going to find it from a search regardless of it’s listed in the leisure=swimming_pool article or not.
I think it’s just you, I get it as second result
Hmmm, weird. I tried it with different browsers and while logged out and logged in. It still doesn’t come up. This is what I get as the top 4 search results. I don’t see water=swimming_pool anywhere in there. It doesn’t even give leisure=swimming_pool as the top result even thought that’s the article it’s mentioned on.
