Proposal:Key:product
| The Feature Page for the approved proposal Key:product is located at Key:product |
| Key:product | |
|---|---|
| Proposal status: | Approved (active) |
| Proposed by: | Haveyougotanypets |
| Tagging: | product=* |
| Applies to: |  ,  ,  , 
|
| Definition: | The human manufactured (none agricultural) output or product that a feature produces. |
| Statistics: |
|
| Rendered as: | N/A |
| Draft started: | 2012-09-23 |
| RFC start: | 2012-10-11 |
| Vote start: | 2012-11-17 |
| Vote end: | 2012-12-01 |
Tag Motivation
The user wished to tag the output of a feature they proposed (man_made=kiln). Instead of using the type=* tag which they felt may be confused between the design type of the kiln and the type of item the kiln produced they opted to use a more specific tag to describe its type (output). This tag has already been used for similar purposes according to the data from taginfo and the user feels that defining it on the wiki would be useful in order to make sure it is used in a coherent and uniform manner going forward.
Use Cases
- A man_made=kiln that produces Charcoal, Pottery, e.t.c.
- Any machine or structure built for the production of a specific thing. (see it's use in Industrial Plant)
Description
The user feels this tag should describe a feature's manufactured output that is non agricultural. In cases where a features output is an agricultural product produced though a natural process of growing or breeding they feel that the produce=* tag is more suitable. This feature will most likely be closely correlated with man_made features, especially those related to industry.
More references to the difference:
Issues
- Pedantic use: If the product is a biological thing produced in a factory which tag should be used - more of a discussion over what you define as agriculture. As always user discretion I guess.
- The approved page should have a section explaining the difference between product and produce and examples of each.
- If this feature is approved I aim to expand the produce=* tag to define the difference between the two.
Alternatives
Keys
| Key | Comment | Taginfo |
|---|---|---|
| output=* | Although an equally appropriate term that perhaps encompasses both product and produce it so far has been used almost exclusively for output in terms of power in KW. Using this term would muddy its definition. Perhaps a better overall structure of use would be something like: value:output:produce value:output:product e.g. kiln:output:product=charcoal as used by electric generators ( generator:output:electricity ) Maybe just kiln:output=charcoal and do away with the use of product and produce all together. However you could argue that output should always be a numerical representation of the output regardless of the source e.g. 1 ton of charcoal or 1MW of power. This all seems overly complicated and difficult to do considering the wide use of produce=*. Also this is a mapping project not a industrial output mapping tool, or is it... |
|
| produce=* | This tag enjoys large usage but has been implemented exclusivity for output in terms of things grown or bred in a natural manner and has almost no man made values therefore I would advise using this tag over the one proposed if the output is agricultural. | |
| resource=* | This tag is described as a tag to mark the resource or mineral commodity in relation to a feature. This suggests it could be used to describe the output of a process as an output is very usually a resource of some type. Looking at its description in the wiki it is very clear that it is intended to be used to describe the minerals extracted from mining or similar processes. However looking at its implementation on taginfo it is less clear that it is being used for this purpose with the second highest value being cereal. |
Proposed Tag
product=*
Rendering
If there is need to render this tag which seems unlikely it would seem a better idea to render based on the value rather than a general icon based on the key.
Voting
Please use {{vote|yes}} or {{vote|no}} and give your reasons to oppose. Use ~~~~ to sign your user name & date.
I approve this proposal. Haveyougotanypets 11:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)- I approve this proposal. Schumi4ever 14:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Surly 16:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Dieterdreist 17:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Johan Jönsson 21:52, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Fabi2 01:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Al3xius 09:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I oppose this proposal. - Do we need two similar keys like "produce" and "product"? I think one of them will be almost enough.--R-michael 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)- I oppose this proposal. - Unnecessary distinction wrt produce=* (a kiln will unlikely produce something agriculturally). Extend produce=* instead. – Simon04 11:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. HillWithSmallFields 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC) ("produce" and "product" are distinct, if a food is prepared in country A from ingredients grown in country B it is a product of A, but produce of B)
- I oppose this proposal. - don't see a reason for the difference between product und produce Theonlytruth 10:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. Miklobit 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. Fringillus 21:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. - I have the same negative opinion --Reneman (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. - Unnecessary distinction with produce. JB (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. - I read the produce description above and simply could not understand it. Confusing is bad, please rework the proposal, get some help with grammar, and come on back -- Brycenesbitt (talk) 03:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. 4rch (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I approve this proposal. L30 (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I oppose this proposal. --Mink (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
