<html theme="default-light" iconset="color"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head><body text="#000000">I'm not advocating for formal standards for
all tags.<br>
<br>
What I would like to see is a recognition that changing a tag value
affects downstream rendering etc. Wouldn't it be nice if we changed all
the objects tagged XYZ to XYY for example. This is a concern as most
end users don't use JOSM or view the tags directly and if the renderer
doesn't recognise the new tag value then the object effectively
disappears.<br>
<br>
Currently we do have some standards, no matter what your native language
is we ask you to use English tags when mapping. When rendering we
render in the language of your choice.<br>
<br>
I think the tag building is generally accepted for a structure.<br>
<br>
height is an accepted tag<br>
<br>
highway is another.<br>
<br>
The current system where a wiki can be edited by anyone or even the
voting system where three or four people can gather together and declare
a new wonderful way of tagging doesn't always reflect what taginfo
tells us is used.<br>
<br>
HOT validators do change the tags on objects mapped by HOT mappers.
Should we permit this or should we keep the original tags? Should they
use a changeset comment and allow for discussion before making the
changes?<br>
<br>
If you use iD or streetcomplete tags are suggested to you. <br>
<br>
To be included in the default rendering then you need to use one of the
tags recognised by that system.<br>
<br>
Then we have Map features.<br>
<br>
So we appear to have five possibly different standard tagging systems.<br>
<br>
Again thoughts please.<br>
<br>
Thanks John<br>
<br>
<br>
<span>steveaOSM wrote on 10/17/2022 5:54 AM:</span><br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:6358D5EB-608E-44FB-A15E-27BF6B0A05BF@softworkers.org">
<pre wrap="">What seems likely for social, linguistic, logistical and practical reasons and what is likely the best possible outcome is that OSM continues a status quo here. "Open tagging" can't ever really be abolished, it is too much an integral part of what OSM is and how it grows and evolves. And as Chris points out: not only humans learn, but software can (and does, to fledgling degrees), too. And software which doesn't learn (most of it, although artificial intelligence techniques and machine learning mechanisms are being built into software more and more often) becomes obsolete, as it always does. Well, unless it is super-massively maintained, and at great expense, some software is. But eventually, newer software paradigms make even the most highly-maintained systems bloated and yesteryear's technology, and they get replaced.
Concomitant with this (apparent) status quo must be the sort of open dialog (as here) which points out this fundamental push-pull between "free for all" and "should or must have some predictability." For it is only with that understanding (of both, and the tension between them), along with smart people who support, uphold and extend this history and ideals of "both" will any given problem be able to craft a solution. I doubt there is (today) a problem regarding tagging — and OSM does have very open "free for all" tagging — that can't be solved, and withOUT resorting to demanding that we implement "tagging standards" (which would crush "open tagging"). Sure, you might need to "special case" things to a ridiculous degree, but that can always be done, even when tedious, difficult, and a lot of work.
The "solutions" which "land in the middle for today," like Proposals, Voting et al, are real-world solutions to problems, but they will always eventually inherently fall flat, being useful only for a limited life-span. This isn't to say they aren't useful — they are. I have both enthusiastically supported and vehemently shouted down many of them. But no matter how well-crafted (and many truly are), some real-world situation, ontology or scheme will someday render them obsolete. They will have lived through their lifespan, and will be, must be discarded for something better. So, too often, when I see genuinely worthy attempts for "tagging standards" (by John, for example, as OP on this topic), I exhale a long sigh, realize that yet again someone believes we can have a "one and done" solution, and try to keep a screed like this terse. It isn't that such beliefs aren't a worthy goal, as they are, it is that we have "written 'freedom' into our DNA" (made 'open tagging' fundamental to OSM), and there isn't any "shackling" of that, once done. There are good attempts to build things that last longer than "briefly," and this strengthens both our community and our map's data. So, let's keep doing those, as they work. But only for a short- or hopefully medium-term, until the world changes. And then, our map (and its tags), being a reflection of that world, must change with it. I have seen this cycle play out many times.
John, nothing personal, you are a great contributor to this project. But we'll never get "tagging standards" in a workable, unanimous, or even consensus-based way, given the messy reality of "open tagging" we already have. (The world is damn messy, our tagging is kind of messy, that's simply reality). There will be "middle compromises" which help, so yes, good, let's keep those up now and into our future. But let's also realize that with our freedom of "any tag you like" comes a cost: that of the unexpected (tag), and "you simply must deal with that." No tagging scheme or ontology we might craft will ever "fix" that. We'll get better, as we do, but there is no crystal-ball-gazing way to fully predict the unexpected changes the future will bring. And for that, we have yet newer tags.
The keys are realizing this, continuing to dialog about this and have people who understand this as we craft tags and tagging going forward. The best scenario is if all of this becomes part of our culture. I think we can do this.</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div>Sent from <a href="https://www.postbox-inc.com"><span style="color:
rgb(0, 157, 247);">Postbox</span></a></div></div>
</body></html>