<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>PART 1 : Tagging</p>
<p>I've been thinking about the tagging discussion... <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">It is often a problem when a specific tag is used for either different
purposes or even worse when it's used for the same purpose but the
values are interpreted differently. (Peter Gervai)</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The LITTLE issue is when Person Romeo and Person Sierra use
different tags for one type of geographic feature. It's a little
issue because a computer provided with a list of such duplicate
tags can successfully render a map. It's a bit more work than
using a strict unique key=value standardised coding schema, but
quite possible, and is normal practice.<br>
</p>
<p>The BIG issue is when Person Tango and Person Quebec use one tag
for two different types of geographic feature. It's a big issue
because the tagging cannot be resolved by any (affordable)
software. It is just impossible for a map rendering application.
<br>
</p>
<p>One more example of the BIG issue is "natural=wood" for (mostly)
untouched natural forests. Examples are in the Congo and Amazon
basins. Simultaneously "natural=wood" is used for man-made single
species tree farms which to my mind are "landuse=farmland
crop=fast_growing_wood". I don't want to debate these particular
tags, I'm just giving an example of impossible to resolve
confusion generated in this way. <br>
</p>
<p>Many people support free tagging, so we should accept that as
status quo. The implied rule for free tagging is "Any one mapped
feature may be identified by many different tags". <br>
</p>
<p>To avoid the same tag identifying different features we need to
collectively set just one rule. "No two different mapped features
may be identified by the same tag"<br>
</p>
<p>That's not standardising at all, but it achieves similar
resolution of the BIG issue. If the second rule is applied, and
enforced, and cleaned up across the database as best we can, then
there is no pressing need for standardisation to a unique
key=value schema. <br>
</p>
<p>And yes, Rule 2 aligns with the Wiki "Any tags you like" page.
See the second paragraph: <br>
</p>
<blockquote>
<p><font face="monospace">"Though it is not 'feel free to ignore
existing tagging schemes and start marking pharmacies with <tt
dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"
style="background:#EEF;font-size:1em;line-height:1.6"><bdi
style="white-space:nowrap"><span class="new">unicorn</span></bdi>=<bdi>parking_lot</bdi></tt>'
". </font><br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This sentence opens the door to some light-touch rule making. <br>
</p>
<p>Any thoughts?</p>
<p>PART 2: OSMF Talk</p>
<p>osmf-talk is a great place to discuss this kind of question. The
list has been dead for a while and suddenly people are taking an
interest. Good. <br>
</p>
<p>tnx, Craig<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:7E2F2D30-09D4-47AD-A7A4-D424CF8C63CF@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I believe the tagging should contain all the information required to render a map according to local standards (if this is desired), but it should not “hijack” globally established tags to make every “global” standard renderer produce maps according to local expectations. This would not work because there are also other uses of the data than rendering a map image.
Not sure if osmf-talk is the best place to discuss this kind of question
Cheers Martin
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>