OpenStreetMap

Tagged as motorcycle parts shop. Since that's what it is.

Closed over 4 years ago by Adamant1

Tags

• Comment from Timur_Crimea over 4 years ago

  Please, Stop your vandalism!
  Read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key%3Amotorcycle%3Aparts CAREFULLY!
  "motorcycle:parts=yes/no
  Useful combination:
  shop=motorcycle"

  "shop motorcycle_parts"
  tag does not exist!

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  Re "shop=motorcycle_parts doesn't exist", it has 76 uses. So, your simply wrong there. As far as motorcycle:parts=yes/no goes, I have zero problem with it being used as a tag to describe a service some other type of shop provides, but there's zero reason to use it in a miss-leading way that doesn't fit with other top level tags, comes at the cost of one, goes against the guidelines of integrating tags in with existing schemes and not "over name-spacing." Which are actual problems. Unlike your baseless claim that there aren't any uses of amenity=motorcycle_parts.

  I'd also add that the wiki page for shop=motorcycle also says that the tag should be used on motorcycle repair shops. Despite the fact that shop=motorcycle_repair has been used for a long time now, has a ton of usage, and has broad support in multiple pieces of software. I guess by your standard though anyone that uses it is committing vandalism, just because of what the shop=motorcycle article says.

  Ultimately your just plain wrong, ridiculous, and needlessly inflammatory by baselessly accusing me of vandalism off the obviously faulty and easily disproved logic that a tag with 76 uses doesn't exist or that it even matters to this. Seriously.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  BTW, If your going to revert someone at least have the integrity to wait until the discussion you started about it to finish before you do. Otherwise, It just leads to edit warring or the person who did the revert getting pie in their face when it turns out they are wrong.

  While I'm fine with it being changed back to the namespace, it has to based on more then your false accusations and there should be an actual discussion about it. Instead of you just bossing me around and accusing me of things. Otherwise, I'm sticking with how I had it.

• Comment from mavl over 4 years ago

  Hello Adamant1. Please, don't continue the edit wars. If you think that tag "shop=motorcycle_parts" is good then add this tag for new objects. Don't change existent objects. Local mappers will use "shop=motorcycle_parts" if they will want.
  
  Vladimir Marshinin
  Data Working Group

• Comment from mavl over 4 years ago

  Timur_Crimea, вы можете вернуть вашу версию, если нужно.
  
  Timur_Crimea, you can use your version if it is necessary.
  
  Vladimir Marshinin
  Data Working Group

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  mavl, Timur_Crimea never responded after I explained the edit. So I thought they were cool with it. That's not edit warring and I don't appreciate the accusation that it was.

  Also, people improve tags all over the place all the time and upgrading tags to more descriptive ones is support by most of the editing software out there. So, respectfully it's not something I feel the need to stop doing. Since it's not wrong and every other editor does it. Plus, there is no "only map new objects" rule in OSM and it's ridiculous to act there is. I could ultimately care less what this is tagged as, but I'm not going to accept your premise that I was edit warring or that I should never add more descriptive tags to things. Especially when that's what the guidelines in the Wiki say to do. Thanks for the opinion though.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  BTW, mavl one of the reasons I am doing this is because I was specifically told by an admin a while back that if we can use more specific shop tags on things to do it. Instead of using less descriptive one just so it renders. Which is probably why it was tagged as shop=motorcycle here. If I'm going to be told a different things by multiple admins and it's going to things like this then you guys really need get your policies figured out and stick to way of doing things and don't allow OSM based software to do things you have a problem with, and keep the guidelines on the Wiki in alignment with it. Otherwise, it's not very fair to the users. Me, Timur_Crimea, or anyone else.

• Comment from mavl over 4 years ago

  @Adamant1, the tag "shop=motorcycle" is not an error. There is no reason to delete it.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  Where did I say the shop=motorcycle tag was an "error"? I've said from the start of this that shop=motorcycle_parts is a more descriptive shop tag. That's it. Just like amenity=car_rental is a more descriptive tag then shop=rental, etc, etc, etc. In no way does that imply shop=rental is an "error" though. The Wiki says "avoid using incorrect tags, or otherwise skewing the data you enter, to make things show up in a specific way on the map rendering" and that's what's going on here. The shop=motorcycle tag is being used in a skewed way so the object will render. The wiki also says "The basic good practice principle is that you avoid using incorrect tags, or otherwise skewing the data you enter." All I'm doing is following good practice. I'd strongly argue the namespace tags are errors though. Especially motorcycle:sales=no. Which is being used as a modifier so a tag that renders can be used on an object that it otherwise wouldn't be usable on. That's not how things are supposed to be tagged and it's not the purpose of the namespace. So, I would say call that an error.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  "over-namespacing leads to a disseminated data scheme: for example, someone interested in VHF channels data will have to look for harbour:VHF_channel key, plus seamark:habour:VHF_channel, plus VHF_channel, plus lock:VHF_channel, plus vhf to collect the data... Using only the vhf key should be enough to know that this data relates to the harbour or the lock or what else is the OSM object we are tagging."

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  So in other words, this is forcing people to search for shop=motorcycle + motorcycle:sales=no + motorcycle:parts=yes + shop=motorcycle_parts. Instead of just shop=motorcycle_parts. Just so there is an icon.

• Comment from mavl over 4 years ago

  @Adamant1

  You may use "shop=motorcycle_parts" tag.
  Timur_Crimea may use "shop=motorcycle" tag.
  
  "Any tags you like". Please, let local mappers to choose the tags. Timur_Crimea may use "shop=motorcycle_parts" tag if he wants it.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  I have zero problem with him using the shop=motorcycle tag on objects that are motorcycle shops. What I have problem with is him or anyone else tagging an object as shop=motorcycle when it stretches what the object actually is and requires the use of 4 extra namespace tags just so people dont think its a shop that sells motorcycles. I'm sure everyone would agree with that and your ignoring the guideline that says we arent suppose to use namespaces in that way. I could really give a crap what or how he tags things other then that, but I didnt make the guideline and its not on me if you or he disagrees with it. If so, you and him should discuss it with the OSM community instead of telling me what to do or asking me to ignore a guideline. Just because he wants it done his way. That's not how things work. The "any tag you like" rule doesnt mean "ignore the guidelines." I cant tag the ocean as a park just because that's how I want to tag it and its ridiculous to suggest otherwise. I'm 100% willing to compromise though and accept it being tagged as shop=motorcycle. As long as the guideline about the use of namespaces and not over namespacing is also followed. That's my only issue. Also, I'm a mapper to, my opinion matters as much as his does, and I dont appreciate you framing of this like I'm not or that it doesnt. Your being extremely one sided and unfair about this.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  I've been more then resonable and explained the reason for the edit and how it was based on the guidelines, your free to disagree, but the way your treating me over it isnt the way to resolve this.

• Comment from Timur_Crimea over 4 years ago

  Adamant1, I didn’t answer you because I sent a request to DWG so that they would explain what to do better and not create a war of corrections here.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  I figured that was why you didn't answer, but if someone stops the discussion half way through it the only thing to assume is that they don't think it's an issue anymore. Especially if they don't even say they disagree.

  Generally, no response is implicit agreement. Like if I write a message on a Wiki talk page that I'm going to change something in an article and no one ever responds, I can assume that means the edit is not going to be controversial. We all have better things to do then reply to things we don't care about.

  I don't think the correct response was to knee jerk report me over something like this anyway though. Doing that and randomly accusing people of vandalism or edit warring usually doesn't resolve things well. And it makes it seem like your more concerned with just getting what you want then actually resolving the problem. If you had of replied instead of it devolving into this crap I would have been fine meeting you half way somewhere. I still am. If your willing to follow the guideline and get rid of the namespace tags, then I'm willing to accept it being tagged as shop=motorcycle. Even though it's more vague that way.

• Comment from Timur_Crimea over 4 years ago

  I think that for the correct recognition of the map by navigation programs, it is better to use established tags. With the permission of the DWG management, I will return my revision back.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  Shop=motorcycle is established and I said it was fine to use. Just not the namespace tags, because they aren't. For example motorcycle:sales=no only has 97 uses, there's no wiki article for it, and it's never been discussed or accepted for this kind of usage. There's also been a lot of criticism and reverting of the motorcycle namespace tags everywhere. Users have even been blocked for using them. None of that goes for shop=motorcycle_parts. You can't say your going to change it back to "establish tags" when the tags your changing it back to are less established and less accepted then the one you have a problem with. By all means though, re-tag it shop=motorcycle, I said I have zero problem with that, just leave out the namespace tags, like motorcycle:sales=no. They are the only thing I have an issue with and everyone else does to.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  I'll also say that if the only way you can accurately describe the object is by using the namespace tags to "clarify" the shop tag then it's clearly the wrong tag. No one is going to disagree with that.

• Comment from Adamant1 over 4 years ago

  You can't add whatever tags you want onto an object just because it's tagged with an established tag either. So, even if shop=motorcycle was correct here, it wouldn't mean the namespace tags would automatically be valid to use "because, well, uuhhh, shop=motorcycle is established."

Log in to join the discussion