It has been stated multiple times that this wasn’t an automated mass edit. Unless I’ve missed something, it looks like <200 POIs were touched in total. This is within the realms of a manually performed & reviewed edit, is it not?
I agree it would have been a good idea to discuss it on the forums beforehand, but I’m not sure a revert is called for.
do you even have an actual material concern about the retagging? because if not i dont see what any issue is. trying to be a stickler about rules here just gets in the way of people cleaning up the data. Should also point out the automated edit guidelines just don’t apply here.
I am not invested in these particular tags but I can see from the tag history graph that gay was an organic tag grown over the years and then went down from about 580 to zero in a short time:
http://taghistory.raifer.tech/#***/gay/
imagine there are dataconsumers looking for this tag, from one day to the other they don’t find the data any more. Even if we agree to sunset the tag, we should follow the schedule so that people have the time to adapt, but we’re not yet at the point that we already know we want to do it, because discussion has just started
Please note that for adding lgbtq tags you do not have to remove other tags
Im gonna be honest, if some non-descript data consumer uses the outdated gay tag over the dominant lgbtq tag and cant just just do a control + f to find the tag and replace it in under a minute, thats entirely on them.
The overwhelming consensus is that the gay tag sucks and its successor lgbtq is better in every way, especially with all the queer people that i talked with about it, youre just late here.
Outdated tag? Wiki clearly states the tag is “in use”. When have we agreed that the tag is outdated and should be removed?
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:gay
Honestly, there is no information about this at all. How can anyone know in the future, that they should not use gay=*? Where is the proposition about the removal of the tag? Where is the information what should be used instead? 500 gay= just disappeared without any notice or information. “Not cool”.
There is never “too late” in osm. We are talking about the old tags all the time. 
As an L and T of the Alphabet Mafia I can confirm that I also think that lgbtq=* is much better. Both tags have the same intended meaning, but the lgbtq one is much more accurate naming wise.
Having something like gay:transgender=* to indicate trans friendly spaces does not make any sense. It also does not make any sense that gay:transgender=* is listed under the “Sexual orientation” section of the wiki
I started the lgbtq tag many year ago and I support this sort of update. For years, I’ve been slowly manually doing this sort of thing. gay=* is a much worse tag than lgbtq=*. A few hundred tags can easily be done by a motivated mapper in one session. Someone else might have already added the lgbtq tag.
LGBTQ venues often close down, A gay=yes tag from 10 years ago, might have closed.
Alas, I’m not aware of any data consumers for the gay=* tag. Taginfo agress.
Yep, quoting my depressed older brother:
it’s a little restrictive. And it also suggested “gay:transgender=yes” which is just plain wrong.
It also applies to memorials, counseling centres, clothing shops, gift shops, youth centres, etc etc
Me too. However, at least in the english speaking world, the word is still slowly being reclaimed. Many LGBTQ people have bad experiences with that word, and don’t use it for themselves. I respect that, and wouldn’t force it on anyone.
The overwhelming consensus is that the gay tag sucks and its successor lgbtq is better in every way
I don’t get why you have to remove the gay tag and not just keep and ignore it along the lgbtq tag. Either you can convince the people using “gay” to retag or accept that some people believe it adds value.
The easy answer is that its duplicate data. Also nobody keeps tags when theyre adding a newer, better tag. You wouldnt tag something as wood=deciduous and leaf_type=broadleaved. It also appears that you dont understand that no one uses gay= anymore. Its basically de facto deprecated.
People does use it. There were still new uses of the tag, before the deletion. You can clearly see it in the chart provided before. What’s even stranger, you can still use in, there is no note anywhere the tag is discouraged and there are no changes to the tag.
That chart is a flat line though. Yes, a note should be added on the wiki that the tags deprecated. Again, have you talked about the gay= tag in any lgbtq group or any other lgbtq people? If you did you would immediately know that most dont like it and dont use it.
As I said before, I’m ok with changing this tag to something else. But not this way. We have been put to situation when the tag is removed with no information, no notice, no changes in any sources and with almost no discussion. It’s not ok.
In current situtaion, yoy should at least put a note on wiki that this tag is discouraged, to provide at least some infomation about the situation.
Again, this was all coordianted and supported in the discord. No one is agaisnt it, not even in this thread. You are arriving late to the discussion and assuming its because it never happened. Trying to force rules (that dont really apply here tbh) to every little situation just gets in the way of data clean up.
I’m not sure if you are reading my posts correctly. Only thing I would like to see is changes in wiki to clearly show the status of gay=*. Because as for now, nothing changed and there is no way to find out why it’s done and what the correct version is. It’s easy and it should have been done before any changes on the map were made.
And in the future, make sure that the changes in the interpretation of tags are discussed and documented correctly. Because the way it’s done this time shouldn’t have happened - this makes a lot of emotions and confusion which could be simply avoided.
I don’t think the problem is the use of the lgbtq tag. I also think that this is the better choice.
The problem is the approach. You simply did the third step before the first. And now you only realise afterwards: oops, we forgot to change the wiki. You just started from scratch, that was the wrong way. The goal is good, the way to get there was wrong. By the way, it’s quite normal for old and new tagging schemes to be used in parallel for a while. And even if it wasn’t an automatic edit (did you really check all the locations on site beforehand?), it was at least a mass edit in which a tag was killed.
yes. i have said it was manual four times before now in this thread alone. if you mean if i literally went to the place itself then no, because i can’t affort 100 plane flights.
also i changed the wiki to show gay= as deprecated
This sentence seems to contradict the rest of your statement when looking at how automated edits are defined, unless you checked the data you added via some other means, e.g. by checking out the website of each venue.
In a nutshell, a manual edit is not defined by the tool that is used, but whether the edited data was checked on the basis of an eligible data source. In this case, a data source that allows you to check whether the location still exists (and since you seem to have replaced gay=yes with lgbqt=primary, whether the place is indeed primarily for lgbqt people rather than just welcoming to them, which is the definition of gay=yes according to the wiki).
If it was an automated edit, then the automated edit guidelines must be followed, which among other things requires discussion on the forum (etc) and documentation beforehand.
To be clear: Discussion about whether or not the lgbtq tag is better than the gay tag does not belong here, but in a discussion that precedes any actual automated or mechanical edit. So, the first step is to determine whether this was an mechanical edit or not.
Alright, it apparently needs to be clarified six times in this one thread alone.
It was a manual edit. It was not automatic.
Yes, i researched every case before hand by looking them up and by finding their website. In the event that a website doesnt exist or could not exist (nudist beaches notably and people tagging places for cruising, was also like 10 out of 400 tags) i just assumed it was lgbtq=primary if there wasnt any extra information in the changeset history. Sometimes gay=yes meant lgbtq=welcome (~10% of the time). If there wasnt any thing lgbtq centric on their website or insta or etc i assumed it was lgbtq=welcome.
Don’t be rude.
Obviously, the mere claims that it was not an automated edit have not been convincing as they lacked explanation why that would be the case. You have to assume that In general, people are not able to read your mind.
Anyway, you now provided that explanation, thank you. From the information provided, it seems clear to me that the edit was fine. Not an automated edit according to OSM rules.
I understand your frustration, and share it regarding sticklers for this non-binding automated code of conduct, which some mappers try to apply to any contribution they don’t like. Even when it clearly does not apply, and them modification have no negative impact.