Proposed bulk removal of service=driveway2

General talk
1

I am proposing a bulk removal of the tag service=driveway2. This tag would be deleted from all features where it is tagged, with no replacement.

Please see the following discussions for the context on why this tag should be removed without replacement:

Note that if anyone wishes to perform a more manual inspection process, please indicate the location where you intend to do that so I can exclude it from my planned bulk edit.

38 Likes
2

Consider excluding the Philippines as it does not have features containing the service=driveway2 tag (this was based on an Overpass query that was executed a few minutes ago (8:36 PM, UTC+8)). If such tags are present in the said country, I won’t hesitate to remove them.

3 Likes
3

You have my full support.

4 Likes
4

I hadn’t even heard of this until now. Sounds very unnecessary. I’m confused as to why someone wouldn’t just use highway=service or that with service=driveway for miscellaneous service roads/driveways, even after reading through the documentation. I’m in support of deleting it.

4 Likes
5

Stand

I opposed any such modification to a valid tag being used, as there are no banned features. You are also removing work that requires time and effort to map the feature as such.

My view of your proposal

zelonewolf, what you are asking to do is to invalidate people’s time and effort to document and map things on a person’s personal time to…

  1. Discussed the ninja-edits done in 2019 that resulted in the current tagging scheme of service=driveway
  2. Engaged in substantial discussions to hammer out the deficiencies in the current tagging scheme, and accepted the request to retain the existing service=driveway with no modifications (Note that this is the key reason why there is a need for a new tagging scheme)
  3. Come up with an alternate tagging scheme service=driveway2, taking into consideration facts (finding and looking up historical definitions that describes the exact word driveway)
  4. Document the service=driveway2 tag with a definition as per historical definition (as opposed to service=driveway ninja-edits into the Wiki in 2019)
  5. Document the service=driveway2 tag with history of the tags, and how they begin to differ
  6. Document the service=driveway2 tag by comparing the tag with the existing schemes to illustrate the differences
  7. Tag/Re-tag objects (that was incorrectly tagged as early as 2013) according to that definition

You are proposing making mechanical changes without proper response to the objections as documented in the various discussions, nor consider other people taking their time and effort to map according to a definition (even if such definition is in your and a few other’s perception “useless”).

Various people have requested alternatives to the gaps in the current tagging scheme, but there has yet to be any better/concrete proposals beyond the current tagging definition. What this means that your “perception” of better means much more value as compared to other people systematically mapping out regions that you have yet to contribute nor map, and that remote mappers’ opinion of their preferred tagging scheme takes priority over those whom actually populates the map.

Comparison of effort

Your proposal, actions…

  1. Only disagrees (opinion), but never discuss on facts
  1. Performing mechanical edit in the middle of a dispute
    • Evaluation on process = 2mins worth of effort

This is in comparison to my efforts to respond appropriately…

  1. My time and effort to do such work and address queries
    • Evaluation on process = months of effort
  2. My time and effort to reply comprehensively to this proposal
    • Evaluation on process = 6 hours to draft this response

You also did not consider that tagging Wiki was never my intention, where my interest are better spent mapping the un-mapped regions. Requiring documenting tag usage is a direct result of the existing tag being changed to something incompatible with already in-used tagging, and a long discussion that resulted in a new tagging scheme that better serves the mapper in what they like to map.

Your actions are akin to a paper-tiger doing a cultural revolution through tag-cleansing (censorship) without responding to facts. I would like to see actual effort in replying, address the pain points instead of an un-hinged response to wipe out work.
Your proposal should at least weigh the effort spent; else there is no merit in your proposal. Another way to view it is that your time is much more important than mine. The following analysis is the homework that you did not do.

A short summary of the timeline (once again)

Actions leading to creation of new tag

  • Mateusz Konieczny reverted several changes to the Wiki in 2020, which contains un-discussed changes directly edited to the service=driveway entry in 2019.
  • The edits were added without any proposal process, with suggestion that such tagging scheme is already in active use in “select regions”/globally (without any documentation of how this is derived). This type of edit is contrary to the documented change/proposal process which the same set of users is requesting.
  • Without the edits, service=driveway is equivalent to service=driveway2.
  • The revert was further discussed on the service=driveway talk page, which various people including Mateusz Konieczny, Jeisenbe discussed various examples and clauses of service=driveway..
    • The discussion goes into the details of various driveway definitions in both US (CA) and UK law, and various dictionary definitions and historical origins.
    • It is determined that the service=driveway definition is an arbitrary definition not referenced from any of the formal definitions.
    • Various ninja edits such as parking lot exceptions “When not to use service=driveway tag” is never derived from the definition, as otherwise it will never make it into the service=driveway page definitions.
    • The discussion resulted in the conclusion that the existing tag values should not be touched, but proposed creation of alternate service=* values. The most appropriate response is to define an alternate service=driveway definition based on the US (CA) definition, which describes how service=driveway2 is intended to be used.
  • The above discussions constitutes proper engagement and discussion, unlike zelonewolf’s assentation that no work is done.
  • No communities have proposed any other alternatives to a better solution.
  • service=driveway2 page was created
    • Page was updated to include various comparisons with existing tags
    • Page was updated to include documented history of the origins of the tag, especially to trace through the relevant highway=service pages.
    • There were attempts to keep the Wiki entry factual (i.e. stripped of opinions and perceptions).
      • Some editors have strived to formulate opinions in the Wiki entry itself.
      • Examples of such taunted opinions include “used by a single mapper who disagrees with how service=driveway is defined”, “Single mapper promotes…”, “this mapper”, “This tag was introduced in 2021 by one mapper”… The reference to “ONE MAPPER” has already improperly influenced the views of people that will engage on any further discussions.
      • Thus, any consideration for such removal proposals are already taunted with Wiki perceptions / opinions that is already extremely distorted from the high-level overview (lack of fairness)
  • Proponents of removal
    • Mainly belong to a group located in the Western region, which has been consistently trying to influence the views of others in the same direction despite being the same group that necessitates the creation of the new tagging scheme in the first place.
    • Merits of the tag were never discussed.
    • Only mass-action that discards “work” has been discussed across OSM Forum / OSM Tagging Mailing list. These are mainly echo chambers already influenced by the above taunted opinions.

Some discussion of the proponents messaging points (In OSM tagging mailing list, OSM Wiki discussions, OSM changeset comments)

Proponents of removal (Sep 2022)

Mateusz Konieczny (Jul 2020)

  • A current proponent of mass removal in Sep 2022, proponent of mass removal in Jun 2023 and was actually the source of the revert on a section ninja-edited into Wiki in 2019.
    • Without revert, service=driveway is equal to service=driveway2.
  • Claim “tag name is misleading” (Jun 2023)
    • Is Opinion: No way to refute.
    • Fact: Tag name is directly defined from dictionary entry and is not misleading.
  • Claim “conflicts with established … tags” (Jun 2023)
    • Established tag was defined through the use of ninja edits, claimed to be global consensus but without any facts to back such claims.
    • Fact: Established tag definition in service=driveway is added via ninja-edit and not through a proposal process.
    • Fact: Established tag definition in service=driveway is added without any discussion
    • Fact: New tag service=driveway2 originated through discussion
  • Claim “conflicts with … and useful tags” (Jun 2023)
    • Opinion: No way to refute/clarify what is useful and not useful to person A and person B. Proponents will always claim X is not useful despite clarity in the definitions, with comparisons.
  • Claims “unclear, poorly defined” (Jun 2023)
    • Opinion: No way to refute/clarify.
    • Fact: Tag is defined based on dictionary definition, further clarified on usage.
    • Fact: Definition is based on long-time used definition that already existed for up to 60+ years, is never an unknown definition nor poorly defined.
    • Fact: All usage conditions and comparisons already defined in Wiki.
  • Claims “its existence is based on someone misunderstanding OSM tagging” (Jun 2023)
    • Opinion: Misunderstanding OSM tagging…
    • Fact: This is new tag and originated from extensive discussion that there is need for new tag.
    • Fact: For new tag, not possible to have misunderstanding if someone chooses to tag it as such.
  • Claims “lot of effort was taken to communicate with its promoter” (Jun 2023)
    • Opinion: There was efforts to engage but without using facts.
    • Fact: Responses have always been to describe using facts.
  • Refused to further engage after it was pointed out that service=driveway is different from service=driveway2.
  • User has attempted and is still attempting to establish taunted perceptions pertaining to the user, and not on facts defined on the Wiki entry.
    • Fact: User has added various negative perceptions on Wiki entry relating to “ONE MAPPER” / “SINGLE MAPPER”.
    • Fact: Wiki should be describing the tag, and not the user.

zelonewolf

Minh Nguyen

  • Is the initial user that proposed bulk removal on OSM tagging mailing list (Sep 2022).
  • Claims “some data consumers treat highway=service without service=* differently than highway=service with service=*” (Sep 2022)
    • Fact: Tag defined based on the definition.
    • Fact: How data consumers consume data is not the primary consideration for a tagging scheme. However, tagging ambiguity is worse as compared to a defined tag.
  • Claims “tag in its current usage is tantamount to service=yes” (Sep 2022)
    • Fact: service=driveway2 is not the same as service=*.
    • Fact: service=* can mean either un-classified or service=driveway which causes confusion.
  • Claims “Allowing service=driveway2 to stand in the database creates a precedent that a single mapper can unilaterally introduce a tag that conflicts with a longstanding tagging convention” (Sep 2022)
    • Fact: Creating a new tag does not set any precedence.
    • Fact: New tag is solving a problem (deficiency in the current service=driveway tagging).
    • Fact: Conflicting with tagging convention is not grounds for removal (especially when it is trying to solve a problem).
    • Fact: Deleting tags is considered censorship. It fundamentally contradicts the “Any tags you like” concept.

Woodpeck

  • Claims “it is a bad choice of tags” (Oct 2022)
    • Opinion: Not able to act on opinion. Bad choice of tag is a perception, and you really cannot address perception.
    • Fact: Tag is defined as per dictionary definition. Wiki entries and actions should not be based on perception, but based on facts.

Users seem to be trying to find another tag for a dictionary definition, i.e. trying to find a new tag for a description of Apple, where Apple has definition (1) and (2).

snoozingnewt

  • Claims “no different than just using service=driveway versus service=driveway2” (Oct 2022)
    • Fact: Wiki was beefed up to highlight the differences as discussed in service=driveway talk entries (Addressed)
  • Claims “no meaning or you don’t know one then it is a nonsense tag” (Oct 2022)
    • Opinion: No way to refute/address.
    • Fact: Wiki was beefed up to highlight the differences as discussed in service=driveway talk entries (Addressed)

ezekielf

  • Claims “driveway2 is not a semantically useful value” (Sep 2022)
    • Fact: Wiki was beefed up to highlight the differences as discussed in service=driveway talk entries (Addressed)

jmarchon

  • Claims "service=driveway2 is nonsense (Oct 2022)
    • Opinion: No way to refute/address.

Woazboat

  • Claims “The notion that “every highway=service absolutely needs to have a service=* tag” is plainly wrong.” (Oct 2022)
    • Fact: highway=service without subtag is ambiguous. Reducing ambiguous is advantageous, whereas service=driveway is encouraging ambiguity.

TLDR

  • Wiki page is formed after extensive discussion on options, well defined with illustrations and comparison. Tag is not useless as per claims.
  • Wiki page is already taunted by Wiki admins, there is never going to be a fair judgement when the initial read-through of service=driveway2 is already negatively portraying the Wiki tagging definition (setup to fail).
  • Data consumers can choose to use the tag as the base highway=service if the sub-category is not recognised (as per how new tags are introduced). New tagging is part and parcel of OSM mapping.
  • Currently removal proposal is based on opinions, with no way to “engage” and refute/respond to perceptions. Discussion should occur based on facts, and facts are specifically address in this response.
  • There has been no better proposal to address the deficiencies in the service=driveway tagging scheme. In the absence of better proposals, there is nothing wrong with continuing to map as per such definition.
  • It is disappointing how users jump directly to the nuclear options based on opinions and not facts, especially for members representing specific communities.

For a user proposing such bulk removal via mechanical edit process, I believe more effort should be used to justify such an action. Unfortunately, I have not seen any efforts matching the level of process to add the Wiki page.

2 Likes
6

71c

4 Likes
7

Can you explain (in fairly simple terms) what a “driveway2” is?

26 Likes
8

Thank you for mentioning me. I stand by what I have written on this matter, which anyone can see for themselves in context using the links at the top of this thread.

8 Likes
9

In case that you are unaware: I (Mateusz Konieczny) and Woodpeck / Frederik Ramm are not the same person.

No idea why this link to edit made by not me is relevant to whether I continued to discuss some topic or not.

And no idea why you think this claim is true. You complain both that I engaged to disagree with you and that I have not engaged.

See also Talk:Tag:service=driveway2 - OpenStreetMap Wiki where you failed to respond since 2021.

If tag is used by a single person or a tiny group this is highly relevant.

Also, I mentioned such info on wiki about tags where I was sole user of them (or extremely dominating user of them).

(and so on for other claims made here, many of them are false, irrelevant etc)

The same for me. Though I would encourage to verify claims made JaLooooNz.

6 Likes
10

@JaLooooNz, You’ve mentioned a lot of other community members. Try typing @ and then their username to make sure they’re notified, like this:

@woodpeck @snoozingnewt @ezekielf @jmarchon @Woazboat

6 Likes
11

I agree and support the (automated) removal of service=driveway2 tags for reasons that have already been discussed to death by plenty of people.
‘It took a lot of effort’ is not a valid reason to keep things if they do not have any sort of positive value for OSM and trying to argue by weighing the time it takes to add vs. remove them is ridiculous.

15 Likes
12

I support the removal. ATYL isn’t a license to cause confusion. The various issues with this tag could have been avoided with community consultation and internalizing feedback earlier. It is unfortunate that it wasn’t worked out long ago but here we are.

It also shows a poor attitude toward the communal spirit of the project to continue to map in a manner that is against the general consensus. At some point, stubbornness in ones own views serves no ones interest. Occasionally, it is necessary to take a loss and move on. We will all experience this from time to time. It’s okay.

20 Likes
13

I also support the removal of service=driveway2, since I still do not understand the meaning and purpose of it.

5 Likes
14

I support this removal. Time spent on a bad idea doesn’t make it a good idea. Classic Sunk Cost Fallacy.

7 Likes
15

In a way this is sad because though not clearly explained it appears for me visiting a half dozen aerials, these ways do not lead to a single residence or building (typical service=driveway tag) but multiple mostly just residences where just highway=service feels incomplete if not wrong. Just guessing what he wanted to tell with this driveway2 value. Over 14.7K and 99.9% in Tokyo. The Japan community I would venture as the lead interested party, not the comfortably numb out in Turrivalignani, no different to the special winter speed tagging in Finland which but 12 cases outside, the 3.7K entries appear there.

16

Many of these ways were originally tagged highway=residential before @JaLooooNz changed them to highway=service service=driveway2. But they also applied this tag to nonresidential service roads, property perimeter roads, parking lot entrances and exits, alleys, parking aisles in a driving school course, even the occasional highway=track.

The point they seemed to be making on the wiki is that all highway=service should ideally have a service=*, which I don’t necessarily disagree with. However, as far as I can tell, they actually used service=driveway2 as a catch-all for any kind of service road that lacks an established service=* value – essentially, service=yes – and eventually took to using it on just about every service road they touched. (You can query Overpass for service=driveway2 ways before and since the DWG intervened.)

To justify their edits, they’ve misinterpreted California law, misapplied dictionary definitions, falsely accused others of unilateral changes, and made ad hominem attacks against those who disagreed with them or merely attempted to mediate the dispute. These points have all been hashed out on the wiki countless times over the past couple years. Sadly, I believe we’re well past the point of debating the tag’s merits. The only reason we’re having this discussion now is that the DWG wanted @ZeLonewolf to run any bulk cleanup past the community first. @JaLooooNz snuck these tags into OSM incrementally over the course of three years, but that doesn’t mean we have to spend three years catching up to these edits.

Yes, most are in Japan, the rest are in Singapore, and none are in California, where supposedly the law requires this tag. For what it’s worth, I’ve notified the OSM Japan Slack workspace and OSM Asia Telegram chat about this controversy on multiple occasions.

15 Likes
17

Thanks for the concise history summation. Given the mishmash of this tag value, I’d not oppose, in fact for those which were residential before Confucius struck I’d not need to think hard to not change them back to residential, but again, I’m just out in Turrivalignani, so my vote would be ‘present’.

1 Like
18

I want to mention there were formal and informal proposal drafts for service=parking Proposal:Service=parking - OpenStreetMap Wiki and service=parking_access [Tagging] service = parking_access for main ways on a parking lot . They can be adopted directly as a replacement.

19

That particular one looks more “residential” than “service” to me, from looking at the imagery. @JaLooooNz what was the logic in changing it from residential to service?

20

I agree with bulk removal of this tag, because this was always a confused, confusing and badly named tag.

1 Like