add compressed_air field to shop=scuba_diving and amenity=dive_centre

[Adamant36]

Currently a lot of scuba diving shops and diving centers that provide air are tagged with both scuba_diving:air_filling=yes and scuba_diving:filling=yes. Likely because of the "services" preset. It would be a lot less convoluted if there was a compressed_air=yes/no preset that people could use instead. Especially considering it is a much more widely used and accepted tag then either of those, and it doesn't involve duplicating a tag. Which I'm not sure why people are doing, but it would likely be fixed if there was just a compressed_air preset. Plus, it would also allow for a more intuitive addition of other tags to describe the compressed air, like compressed_air:fee etc.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:compressed_air

[tyrasd]

Can you please elaborate why compressed_air is to be preferred over the (IMHO) more specific scuba_diving:air_filling (and related) tags. I'm not a diver, but isn't there a bit more to filling a scuba bottle than just pumping compressed air into it?

I also took a look at the original proposal for the dive_centre tag, and it does not appear to mention the compressed_air tag, while all references to compressed_air have later been added by you. :thinking: Was there a discussion leading up to this change?

PS: here are some current statistics:

tag	amenity=dive_centre	shop=scuba_diving
total	1338	1540
with scuba_diving:air_filling=*	64	65
with scuba_diving:filling=*	79	49
with compressed_air=*	5	3

[Adamant36]

Can you please elaborate why compressed_air is to be preferred over the (IMHO) more specific scuba_diving:air_filling (and related) tags. I'm not a diver, but isn't there a bit more to filling a scuba bottle than just pumping compressed air into it?

The history is rather convoluted, but the gist of it is that the whole scuba_diving: namespace thing (along with similar Whatever:whatever=whatever tagging schemes) was created and mainly pushed by someone who spent 4 years inflating the usage of the tags through undiscussed mass edits and editing waring. Often the cost of massively deflating the usage of the alternatives through said edits. In fact he was blocked as recently as 15 days ago for it and he is currently blocked from editing the Wiki for the same kind of behavior. It's also worth mentioning that he did a proposal for the scheme a while back that he subsequently abandoned when it was clear that no one wanted to adopt it.

Given all that, you can't really just create a table of the tagging usage and then be like "lets go with whatever tag currently has the most usage" in this case because there's been an extreme amount of intentional screwing with the numbers, badgering of users, and other things involved in the current usage that shouldn't be supported by adopting scuba_diving:air_filling. Likely compressed_air would be used more on scuba diving places if it wasn't for all that. In fact, if you look into the history of the tag there was mass edit by Ti-lo in 2017 that resulted in it going down by almost 500 uses. Which I'm sure matches a similar increase in the namespace alternatives.

[Adamant36]

I also took a look at the original proposal for the dive_centre tag, and it does not appear to mention the compressed_air tag, while all references to compressed_air have later been added by you. 🤔 Was there a discussion leading up to this change?

I never looked at the original proposal, but were the alternatives to compressed_air ever mentioned in it? As far as if I discussed the "change", I didn't "change" anything. I simply added an alternative tag that makes sense to use in places where other things besides scuba diving tanks can be filled with air. Which I didn't feel needed to be discussed. Especially since I didn't get rid of the namespace tags from the article. Maybe if I had of actually "changed" something I would have discussed it before hand, but simply listing alternative tags in absence of any other changes to an article is done all the time without discussion and my edit wasn't some special case where I felt there needed to be one.

As far as which is the "correct" tag, I'd say neither. As it's mostly a matter of what kind of attachment the air compressor and tank or whatever your trying to fill has. There isn't special equipment just for diving tanks that I'm aware of though. So sometimes a tag like scuba_diving:filling works and sometimes compressed_air does, but that said it's always compressed air regardless. So the discussion about it is a little pedantic IMO. It's not on me if you think the compressed air tag shouldn't be used in situations that involve compressed air.

[tyrasd]

Hey. Thanks for the background information. I was not aware of it.

It's also worth mentioning that he did a proposal for the scheme a while back that he subsequently abandoned when it was clear that no one wanted to adopt it.

Which proposal do you mean exactly? Can you share a link?

I never looked at the original proposal, but were the alternatives to compressed_air ever mentioned in it?

I realized that I linked the wrong proposal page above. Sorry for that. The correct link is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/scuba_diving2. It states: _“Here is a set of additional tags you can use to describe a dive center or shop. […] scuba_diving:filling=yes + scuba_diving:air_filling=yes […]”_ and never mentions the compressed_air tag.

I think in order to change the tagging recommendations of an accepted tag you should initiate a new proposal to find a consensus in the community about it.

[Adamant36]

I think in order to change the tagging recommendations of an accepted tag you should initiate a new proposal to find a consensus in the community about it.

The original proposal was for sport=scuba_diving. Not an additional tagging scheme on top of it. Which is the quote you provided from it says "Here is a set of additional tags you can use to describe a dive center or shop." Making side recommendations in proposals about other tags doesn't make those recommendations any more or less the community consensus based, preferred tagging scheme then me saying amenity=compressed_air is because it has 6,000 uses and the alternative has like 65. No one voted on the namespace tags.

They voted on sport=scuba_diving. In the meantime if anything someone should initiate a new proposal to see if there is actually a consensus for the various "filling" namespace tags and ID Editor should stop recommending them until then, but amenity=compressed_air is already a tag that has a preset and is used on places that provide compressed air. I'm not doing a proposal to be like "hey, can we use a tag on scuba diving places that's already supported in iD Editor and used exactly for this type of thing." That would be like expecting there to be a proposal for every use case of the phone tag. "well, there's no proposal to do use it on Tai Restaurants! So you should do one before we support it in that case." Get real. It's perfectly fine to support commonly used tags in different scenarios where they apply without having to do a proposal about it first.

More importantly though, the proposal was for sport=scuba_diving. I'm asking for compressed air to be applied to shop=scuba_diving and amenity=dive_centre. Even if we follow your opinion that the namespace tags where part of the sport=scuba_diving proposal and are the community consensus tags in that case, no one is using sport=scuba_diving on either of the tags my request is about. Per the proposal "ince sport=scuba_diving is a non-physical tag, it should be combined with other (physical) tags, describing specific attributes of a dive spot. Since when is a shop that sells scuba diving equipment shop a dive spot?

[tyrasd]

They voted on sport=scuba_diving. […] the proposal was for sport=scuba_diving.

That's now how I read the proposal. It clearly states that it is more than just about the value of the sport tag. It starts with the following:

This proposal is split in several kinds of things :

Indoor / outdoor Diving Spots
Diving Center
Diving shop attributes

---

If you are not willing to invest the time to get this clarified, the only thing I can do right now is to close this issue, I'm afraid.

[Adamant36]

That's now how I read the proposal. It clearly states that it is more than just about the value of the sport tag. It starts with the following

That's fine if you interpret the proposal that way. I disagree though based on the the fact that the green header for the tag literally says it's for "sport=scuba_diving." as well as the fact that it includes the sentence "To mark a known place for scuba diving and dive relevant places, refined version of tag:sport=diving and previously proposed tag:sport=scuba_diving." All of which makes it clear that the purpose of the proposal was to define tags and keys that could be used with the sports tag.

In the meantime, the league tag is mentioned in the same section where the various filling tags are. So I guess you'd say the league tag is approved now because it was mentioned as a tag people "can use" in an approved proposal for something else. Not to be uncharitably, but that seems like an extremely foolish way to determine what tags are authoritative, definitive, and which should or shouldn't be adopted by iD Editor 🤣 I don't think that's what the whole "We support tags based on community approval" part of the readme has in mind either.

If you are not willing to invest the time to get this clarified, the only thing I can do right now is to close this issue, I'm afraid.

It's not that I'm unwilling to invest the time to get it clarified, I just don't think I need to waste my time doing it at this point based on your opinion. Which clearly doesn't fit any kind of reasonable standard or the general consensus about what tags are considered "community approved." If someone came along and asked for the support of the league tag I assume there would be a little more involved in iD Editor supporting it then you just being like "sure, it's mentioned in Proposed features/scuba diving2 which was approved. So why the hell not." But that's essentially the way that the various filling tags were implemented. I don't need to "invest the time to clarify" that it was originally the wrong way to go about it originally. In the meantime I'd appreciate it if you left the issue open so other people who are more reasonable can see it and comment if they feel like it. Are you the final word when it comes to all things tagging or just anti-discussion? Maybe I miss-read things, but I thought part of the purpose of this repository was to clarify things and that's exactly what I'm doing by discussing the tags here.

[tyrasd]

Are you the final word when it comes to all things tagging

I try to reflect the OSM community's approved tagging in this repository.[^1]

What I am seeing here is that there was a community proposal, which included a set of tags which the former maintainer of this repository decided to include in the preset. Now you come along and want to replace the existing, relatively well used tagging with one that is used only 5 times globally. Sure, it could be that the original proposal was poorly written, maybe it didn't intend to include these tags, or maybe it did but it would be better to use the tag you propose instead. But what I cannot do is to change this solely on the basis of your personal opinion. If other people confirm your view then we can for sure think about this again. IMHO, it would be best to do this in form of a proper new proposal on the wiki, but I guess other forms of community consensus could also work.

[^1]: Additionally, there are some technical and maintenance constraints to consider, and too complex or too niche tagging schemas might also be out of scope for iD.

[tyrasd]

PS: I just tried to look into the argument given by you above:

In fact, if you look into the history of the tag there was mass edit by Ti-lo in 2017 that resulted in it going down by almost 500 uses. Which I'm sure matches a similar increase in the namespace alternatives.

Simply put: I cannot find any evidence of this. The usage of the scuba_diving:* namespace only started to become popular in mid-2018, so about a year after the drop in the usage of the compressed_air tag.

[Adamant36]

Now you come along and want to replace the existing, relatively well used tagging with one that is used only 5 times globally.

That's slightly disingenuous because compressed_air has a lot more then 5 uses. In the meantime it's not like the 49 uses of scuba_diving:filling on shop=scuba_diving, which is what this request relates to, is all that much. Let alone is it enough to cry foul about me trying to persuade you to replace a "widely accepted tag" or whatever. The fact that your coming at me like I am by saying "Now you come along and want to replace the existing, relatively well used tagging" is just laughable. Especially since I also suggested just not having a default in the first place so people can decide on their own what tag to use. Which wouldn't be "replacing" anything.

Sure, it could be that the original proposal was poorly written, maybe it didn't intend to include these tags, or maybe it did but it would be better to use the tag you propose instead.

Would or wouldn't be better to use the tag I "propose" instead? Either way, like I said I'm just as fine with there not being a default in the first place. I could ultimately care less what tag is used outside the fact that neither tag is used enough on scuba diving shops to call it "widely accepted" or whatever and in the meantime compressed_air has more usage over all then the "filling" tags do. I'm also approaching this from the perspective that there really isn't such as a thing as a place that exclusively fills diving tanks and nothing else. Which you seem to be ignoring. On places that don't, what is your suggestion, because compressed_air + scuba_diving:air_filling is super redundant and goes against the whole "one object, one OSM element" rule or whatever.

what I cannot do is to change this solely on the basis of your personal opinion.

I'm not asking you to change it based solely on my personal opinion. I'm asking you to change it based on how many uses there are for the compressed_air tag in other instances and the fact that there would probably be many more usages of it in this case if the tag hadn't of been mass edited. That said, how many times have you said "IMHO" in this discussion compared to me and the amount of times I've provided evidence to support what I've told you? Nowhere have I said that it was "my personal opinion" that the compressed_air tag was mass-edited and anyone can look at the tags history to see that it was.

IMHO, it would be best to do this in form of a proper new proposal on the wiki, but I guess other forms of community consensus could also work.

Unfortunately I'm currently blocked from editing the Wiki for a year and I don't know how to use the mailing list. Nor do I feel like putting the effort into learning how to or think I should have to. So this is where I decided to get some kind of "community consensus" about it. Ultimately it would be the same people commenting no matter where I take it anyway. There isn't some "mailing list magic" where if a user gives their thumbs up about it there that it's more authoritative then them doing it here. I'm more then willing to ask about it on the Wiki once I am un-blocked though, but it will be a while.

Simply put: I cannot find any evidence of this. The usage of the scuba_diving:* namespace only started to become popular in mid-2018, so about a year after the drop in the usage of the compressed_air tag.

Ultimately it doesn't matter if there was an increase in the usages of the namespaces to coincide with the tags going down, because I was giving a reason for why there might only be 5 uses of the compressed_air tag on sucuba diving shops. Which isn't suddenly negated just because Ti-Lo didn't decide to completely follow through on his mass editing plans after he gutted the usage. It's likely he had planned to but couldn't because he was blocked multiple times around then for doing the mass-edits and just decided to leave it be after the initial edits. Hell, maybe he waited a year due to the blocks and then continued which is why the original proposal was in 2011 and the tags only started being used in 2018 after he mass-edited the compressed_air tag. I doubt it was just a coincidence. I know he's edited the tags in the meantime and I've had several discussions with him about it also. Just because you don't know all the nuances and background information of this doesn't mean what I'm telling you is un-true.

BTW, even though we disagree about things I appreciate your willingness to re-open the issue and have a discussion about it.