I think you should stop changing ref’s in Sweden now.
Too much guessing is currently involved, and there is no or little involvement from the Swedish community. Several of the suggested updates are not real refs, they are just extra attributes which were included in earlier imports. A cleanup could be needed, but it will have to be done by people who understand the Swedish source data, preferably the ones who did the original imports. Also, import wiki’s and scripts will need updates. Your edits are already disrupting several update/import scripts which are being used in Sweden (specifically, when identifying administrative boundaries).
Because you are just asking questions without even trying to understand what people tell you.
As long as the answers are in your favour (and people do the work you ask them to do for you (hey do it youself)) everything is fine for you, but as soon as someone does not agree with you you just start to put out questions that you should actually answer for yourself. Take out a mirror!
The problem is not you as a person (as I do not know you I can not judge about you) but the way you communicate here.
For the rest maybe have a look at your other thread here in the swedish community and try to understand what the people tried to tell you in the end of the “discussion” (If you do not get it, maybe show it to somebody else in real life that can tell you - this is sometimes easier than just reading it).
Anyway: Accept that it is better for the moment to leave the tags in Sweden as thea are.
Agree with previous replies, while there are tags in Sweden that would benefit from a cleanup, you are not in the right position to drive it.
Just as a concrete example; changing lst:diarienr to ref:SE:diarienr would result in a useless tag, in a way which is pretty obvious to any native Swede (or anyone spending 10 seconds googling the terms) (and yes, that also means that the existing ref:SE:diarienr-tags should be renamed, but doing so correctly would require significant detective work).
If you want to continue helping us clean up the tagging in Sweden and are prepared to put in the work, I suggest the following:
Take a single existing tag (not several similar, just 1 single conversion)
Do extensive research - why was it added? when? is it’s usage documented anywhere (wiki, forum, mailing list, Facebook-group, etc., and note that no one wants to do that research for you, so asking is not the right approach)? are they referenced in any sort of import script (active or not)? what does the tag actually mean?
Learn to do the conversion yourself; pick a tool, learn to use it for “normal” mapping, connect it to the testing environment of OpenStreetMap, try to do the conversion in the testing environment
Write a proposal, you may want to follow this form:
I’ve been looking into tag, and it seems that it would be more clear if it was instead named new-tag.
tag was originally introduced… It’s used in … It was most recently added in …
The new-tag would be more clear because …
If the community agrees I’d be happy to do the conversion, see where I’ve tried it out before. In addition to translating the data I’d also have to update …
Remember, we are all volunteers here. We all have a limited amount of time to spend on OSM, and all have our own interests and personal projects. We are generally happy to come with input on any thought through proposals, but we don’t generally have the time or energy to do any of the research (or work) for you. That’s why you won’t get anywhere by asking us to research and provide evidence for your project. And yes, it’s fully possible that, due to language barrier etc., this means that you do not have the means to perform this project, just like (probably) neither of us have the means to map shops in rural Australia or translate street signs in South Korea.
How was that conclusion derived? What makes lst:diarienr and ref:SE:diarienr tags? According to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tags these tag-parts are keys?
“the existing ref:SE:diarienr” are the result of renaming from
and maybe other variants. Why would the addition of “SE:” or “ref:SE:” and lower-casing turn these into “a useless tag, in a way which is pretty obvious to any native Swede (or anyone spending 10 seconds googling the terms)”
Was it checked whether “any native Swede (or anyone spending 10 seconds googling the terms)” 1) inserted “ref:DIARIENR” or “ref:diarienr” or “DIARIENR” into OSM? 2) agreed to the renaming?
Knowing Swedish, a little (on the level of what can be considered common knowledge) about how Swedish governmental agencies work, and thus what “diarienr” means.
Because with the prefix lst: they are not useless. (yes, this could simply be solved by keeping the prefix and renaming to something like ref:SE:lst:diarienr, which was my point that you need to have some local language knowledge in order to be able to come up with a working proposal)
It’s a bit scary that you are “organizing” but don’t know that you did change that. It’s a clear sign that you should stop this “organizing” completely before you mess it up more.
As 02JanDal points out, it is not perfect today, but at least it has some meaning and history.
There is a lot of stuff to do that can improve the map. Try to focus your energy on that instead.
The general consensus of the Swedish community seems to be that this is not a change we currently wish for, as evidenced by the others who have posted in this topic. I would advise you to move on to other projects.
But where is the proof that I did not know that, see “and maybe other variants.” Only few cases where changed from lst:diarienr to ref:SE:diarienr, mostly when lst:nvrid was changed.