Feedback on that is welcome (especially if something bad got approved that should not have been). As usual best way to do so is to create issue at GitHub · Where software is built but posting in this thread also would work.
There are multiple ones listed below - checking even single one would be highly helpful! If you would be interested, have time and so on. Taking look at more suspect ones would be likely most helpful. Please comment if you see any that would add tagging scheme that should not be supported. If labels, icons or other elements would be bad, please also comment.
Proposed changes should have “ Your pull request preview is ready” as the first comment with link to instance of iD in US English with this proposed change applied. This way, such proposed change can be tested, you can see new icon in action etc. Such preview becomes inactive after such time, feel free to post request for its recreation.
Also, feedback is valuable on prepared changes (called “pull request” or “PR”). In some cases dedicated consultation threads exist already at forums, see ones triggered by:
You are welcome to comment on them - best directly on GitHub, feel free to comment also here if for some reason you avoid GitHub.
If you think that more entries from above should get own discussion thread like one going for leisure=summer_camp - please, comment here (or in issue/PR directly).
(if anything in post above is unclear/confusing or you want more info - feel free to ask for it, if there is interest I can generate listing that has more info, or explain something in detail)
(my primary reason for making this thread is to encourage feedback on this larger iD tagging schema changes, to avoid making bad ones)
Shortly after posting I had thought that this list is suspiciously short - and noticed an omission. After going through PR list and fixing several labels, I want to list also:
(some still be missing, if there are any existing at time when this post was created and they are still missing here, then please let others know in this thread and I will also add a missing label)
It would be helpful if the list here would include the current status and taginfo overall use count as that is kind of the base data you would need to decide if you should check an individual item.
It’s not surprising people think that way if you look at the website of SIGRE, which organises this in Spain. Not only do they use a green circular logo that people are likely to associate with recycling, they literally state:
“Thanks to the common effort, you have a system that is convenient and close to your home in Spain, which has all the health and environmental guarantees for the correct recycling of medicines and their packaging”
Note that this tag was introduced by some organised mapping campaign, done by paid mappers, in violation of osm rules, and still is mostly used in small part of the world.
I am really dubious about promoting it.
Feedback at the issue is basically “this is a bad idea”. The OSM iki says in the description “(note: barrier=gate is the standard tagging for such objects, this tag is used primarily by Grab employees)”.
Why (a) is that even on this list (that you are now promoting, despite being dubious about) and (b) should I have to do this digging that you could have presented tag by tag yourself?
Can you now go through in reasonable detail and describe the other proposed changes?
For completeness, I am one of the four consumers of this tag - it does pass the usage threshold in the area that I’m interested in to be shown on maps as a gate, but this doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to encourage the addition of more.
Ideally, if people see problematic tags listed here, they would comment on linked pull requests that problem exists. Or complain in this thread directly. Or point out some controversy and that it should be discussed wider in a given case.
I already closed quite long list of clearly dubious proposals (or suggested doing so to iD maintainers). What remains are cases where I see no problems or I am not sure enough to just reject it.
I can also group that list into “I see problems here, maybe we should ignore/replace this tags” and “I think we should go ahead with this”.
Obviously, I can just close ones that in my judgment after consulting osm data, wiki, taginfo etc are problematic, and suggest merging remaining ones. Though I think that giving people chance to review this would be a good idea.
Maybe I should not bother people on forum about this and assume that anyone interested can visit iD tagging schema issue tracker anyway? Or post threads about individual cases, each one separately? (every single one of mentioned above?) Maybe I should make this thread in a smarter way? First try is unlikely to be optimal and may have been really bad - but I want next one to go better.
someone looks at list and select link of interest to them, maybe one looking problematic (can be repeated with other one later)
they open the link
they look at the content in linked PR maybe also linked issue
if they see problem, especially one not raised already, they can comment - directly on github or here in the thread (if problem was raised before they can use upvote reaction)
in cases where I already problems and they were shared by others: reject proposal
In care where brand new issues were raised: proceed taking new info into account
If second step is too big barrier to participate, I guess that copying discussion that happened there would make sense.
I can also do case-by-case summary, but in such case main benefit that I hoped for (independent spotting of potential problem, less influenced by my potentially flawed judgment) would require people to look at original discussion anyway.
Do you think that doing “Hey, I think that following tags should become supported in iD tagging schema, please protest if you disagree” and not listing dubious one would be more productive?
EDIT: rewrote initial post a bot and added note how looking at even single one would be helpful.
For completeness, I am one of the four consumers of this tag - it does pass the usage threshold in the area that I’m interested in to be shown on maps as a gate, but this doesn’t mean that it is a good idea to encourage the addition of more.
I’m ok with sliding gates having a first level tag, at least I recently encountered some in my area during mapping, checked taginfo and thought they’re sufficiently established. We’re already distinguishing lots of barrier types and generally the most relevant information for consumers are the access tags on gates anyway.
I am glad you are posting here about possible new iD presets, I don’t have the time to browse their issue tracker but I agree iD presets are somehow important because so many people are using iD and it is “the official editor” and other editors are also using these presets (e.g. goMap!!)
Your pull request preview is ready” as the first comment with link to instance of iD in US English with this proposed change applied. This way, such proposed change can be tested, you can see new icon in action etc. Such preview becomes inactive after such time, feel free to post request for its recreation.