<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I'll reply to this as me since the DWG's ticketing system was
cc:ed on this mail and we can't reply from there because the
messages will bounce.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 21/12/2020 15:42, Brian M.
Sperlongano wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx0EpzJ+-yoF+4rzSeEPe1LYgYHxa4CLpCcvRoxZ0CxuCw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01
AM Frederik Ramm <<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org"
moz-do-not-send="true">frederik@remote.org</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Our current data model is
not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can<br>
only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or
basic tenet of<br>
verifiability doesn't work well with fuzzy data.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
The current data model works just fine for fuzzy areas: it
requires a polygon combined with tagging that indicates that
the area is "fuzzy". Since the current data model allows both
polygons and tags, fuzzy areas could be mapped just fine from
a technical standpoint.<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
(snipped discussion)<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx0EpzJ+-yoF+4rzSeEPe1LYgYHxa4CLpCcvRoxZ0CxuCw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
Since "fuzzy areas" are allegedly harmful to the database and
data model, will the DWG be taking swift and immediate action
to delete the 49 objects currently harming the database by the
use of the "fuzzy" key?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><a
href="https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=fuzzy"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=fuzzy</a><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Has the DWG ever taking swift and immediate action to enforce a
particular tagging scheme? We've certainly taken swift and
immediate action to reverse the deletion of countries that someone
didn't like, and to remove genitalia from the front lawn of the
White House, but I can't think of an occasion when we've enforced
a particular tagging scheme in that way.</p>
<p>The nearest recent example that I can remember was us having to
"pick a side" in the Chesapeake Bay debacle
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056426.html">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056426.html</a>
), but that was essentially just a revert to the "status quo ante"
so that normal coastline processing could continue.<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx0EpzJ+-yoF+4rzSeEPe1LYgYHxa4CLpCcvRoxZ0CxuCw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote"><br>
Further, since we have free tagging, there is nothing
preventing mappers (especially ones not party to these
conversations) from adding additional fuzzy areas to the
database, mapped with some invented scheme, and potentially
even creating data consumers to consume such invented
tagging. Many tagging schemes in OSM have arisen in this
manner.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">I think we need to know whether these
comments represent the opinion of the DWG, and whether the DWG
is signaling to the community that they will be taking a
heavy-handed approach against mappers that invent schemes for
or create fuzzy areas through the principle of free tagging.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>People add new stuff to OSM all the time, and invent new tagging
schemes. As long as it's possible to retag later when something
better comes along, that's fine. People who try and use the data
may well say "I can't possibly use data tagged like that, I'll
just ignore it", and that's fine too. As long as proponents of
the new scheme don't try and misrepresent it (e.g. have the wiki
say that it is really popular when it isn't), or mechanically edit
existing data to match it, or misuse an existing key in some way,
I can't see why anyone would want to purge a new key from the
database.</p>
<p>Best Regards,</p>
<p>Andy (from the DWG)</p>
<p>PS (not with a DWG hat on): Just to pick up on one other thing-
as some people may know, the last time "tagging list mail volume"
was mentioned I wrote
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/393175">https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/393175</a> . By
my reckoning, Anders is only in 5th place this month on the
tagging list in terms of number of posts, and is some considerable
way off the all-time record (someone managed 132 personal posts
one month earlier this year). How we try and map fuzzy stuff is
worth discussing, even if with a rendering hat on I'm still in the
"I can't possibly use data tagged like that, I'll just ignore it"
corner on that one. Mind you, I didn't think that anyone would do
anything useful with site relations, and openinframap does.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAMrfQx0EpzJ+-yoF+4rzSeEPe1LYgYHxa4CLpCcvRoxZ0CxuCw@mail.gmail.com"></blockquote>
</body>
</html>