User talk:GA Kevin
Mailing List Proposal
Your removal of every reference and instructions about the tagging mailing list from the proposal overview page: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposal_process&diff=next&oldid=2871620 Please restore the content about the tagging mailing list, it was discussed whether it was mandatory to announce rfc and voting on the list, but not to close the list or remove any reference to it from relevant pages. People can still discuss tagging and proposals on the list. —Dieterdreist (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Dieterdreist, this exact edit, down to replace/with, remove, or add was voted on by the community on the proposal page. If you feel it was incorrectly executed we can discuss but any edit or revert away from the approved proposal wording / removal would be going against community approval. --GA Kevin (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying, I cannot check it now because of weak internet connection, but I’ll check it in a few days. I don’t recall seeing so many deletions literally proposed. Also I’d question if deprecation and removal of documentation is even covered by the proposal process. —Dieterdreist (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sure thing, the proposal that was approved can be seen here. You questioned the use of the proposal process for this change here which led to its "de facto" use for this kind of thing being pointed out. Hope that clears things up, happy to answer any other questions you may have :) --GA Kevin (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for the pointers, I now saw you executed exactly what was proposed. Personally I would have preferred to have some reference to the mailing list still on the page (it is somehow there, among the "contact channels"), also because all tagging proposals and quite some discussion from the long period since the list had been established until now, can be found there, but I agree that formally it was exactly what was voted on. --Dieterdreist (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
- Sure thing, the proposal that was approved can be seen here. You questioned the use of the proposal process for this change here which led to its "de facto" use for this kind of thing being pointed out. Hope that clears things up, happy to answer any other questions you may have :) --GA Kevin (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying, I cannot check it now because of weak internet connection, but I’ll check it in a few days. I don’t recall seeing so many deletions literally proposed. Also I’d question if deprecation and removal of documentation is even covered by the proposal process. —Dieterdreist (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
Sockets
Why did you again remove the documentation of socket tags that are used, but either wrong or deprecated? This documentation is needed as long as these tags are in use. You tried to do that already 2 months ago. --Mueschel (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @Mueschel! I removed those because we don't tend to document the incorrect way to map things, we tend to document the correct way. Perhaps a "Possible tagging mistakes" section is needed instead? I see the organization by type has also been removed, this was in an effort to reduce the columns to not make the key so overwhelming and better optimized on mobile screens. Happy mapping! -- GA Kevin (talk) 11:33, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- Tags that are in use need to be documented. Tags that are still in the minds of mappers and in presets of editors need to be clearly pointed out as outdated. All of these tagging mistake entries are clearly marked and offer direct help about the proper tags - all of this wouldn't be there in case of a separate "list of mistakes".
- The "organization by type" is another problem of your huge edit: The table was not sortable any more. Before that the user was free to sort by type, or by name, or by usage count. --Mueschel (talk) 12:10, 23 August 2025 (UTC)