I would like to criticise the tag “museum=apis_mellifera” and put it up for discussion.
A museum on this topic is essentially about beekeeping, not about the honeybee species alone. That’s why a tag like “beekeeping” or “apiculture” would be more appropriate.
I see no need to introduce a special value for beekeeping in museum=*:
Rural and commercial beekeeping, with the purpose of ensuring pollination and obtaining bee products, should be seen as part of agriculture. Then a beekeeping museum can be counted as museum=agriculture.
Alternatively, the bee and its ecology can be placed at the centre of attention. Then museum=nature should be the correct categorisation.
I consider it inconsistent to use the value “apis_mellifera” on the same level as “art”, “nature” or “history”.
My suggestion is to delete the entry museum=apis_mellifera without replacement.
To tag the type or subject of a museum more precisely, there are options using subject=* or museum:type=*, as described in the wiki.
I could see point of tagging like museum=agriculture agriculture=beekeeping (not convinced that it is actually better) but removal without replacement is causing data loss.
It was my suggestion to discuss this in the international part of the forum as it is of general interest, so the outcome of a German discussion would likely be contested as not sufficient
I’m neither using nor mapping museum data at this level of detail. But intuitively, I would agree that apis_mellifera is not at the same level of abstraction as the other values documented for the museum key and that it might therefore make more sense to use a more general category, possibly paired with some other tag for this specific subject.
I’d normally suggest getting users of this data involved in such a discussion so that we have more than just data modelling intuition to ground this discussion on, but there don’t appear to be any. The Taginfo projects page for museum only lists editors, but no data consumers.