<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><div></div><div>Thanks for this summary!<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>I would also mention that for different tags different level of<br></div><div>acceptance and coordination is needed.<br></div><div><div><br></div></div><div>If tag is unused and noone supports it - barrier is much lower.<br></div><div>If alternative is already supported - barrier is much lower.<br></div><div>If tag is unimportant - barrier is much lower.<br></div><div><div><br></div><div>But if you want to deprecate something used over 10 000 000 times<br></div><div>and with a massive support everywhere...<br></div></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div><div>It's not a matter of votes. As you correctly say, this group here<br></div><div>doesn't decide what OSM does; it doesn't have the mandate for such<br></div><div>decisions, it cannot force anybody to do anything (and it should not).<br></div></div></blockquote><div>The same for proposal process at wiki. It may be an argument, <br></div><div>sufficient in some cases - but vote on wiki, even succesful, is<br></div><div>not enough to deprecate for example landuse=forest.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Discussion on tagging list, OSM Wiki proposal process is not<br></div><div>order/mandate - it is rather suggestion/argument/proposal.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Feb 4, 2021, 11:27 by frederik@remote.org:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div>Hi,<br></div><div><br></div><div>On 04.02.21 06:02, Stefan Tauner wrote:<br></div><blockquote><div>But let's suppose that we discuss this enough so that we get enough<br></div><div>votes together. What then?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's not a matter of votes. As you correctly say, this group here<br></div><div>doesn't decide what OSM does; it doesn't have the mandate for such<br></div><div>decisions, it cannot force anybody to do anything (and it should not).<br></div><div><br></div><div>Like any project of societal change, if we wanted to make wide-ranging<br></div><div>changes like that, we would first have to build a very convincing cause<br></div><div>- something that will make the average mapper say "mh, sounds like a<br></div><div>good idea, it will solve some problems that I have had too".<br></div><div><br></div><div>Then we'd have to devise a technical plan on how the change could be<br></div><div>implemented with minimal disruption to data consumers. (Personally, in<br></div><div>the past I've occasionally said "fuck data consumers, let's do what we<br></div><div>think is right and they have to adapt", and while I still sympathise<br></div><div>with that mappers-first approach, I now see that OSM itself would suffer<br></div><div>a lot, starting with every mailing list, support email address, and chat<br></div><div>being absolutely overflowing with questions of "why has the forest<br></div><div>suddenly gone in my flight simulator", and then tons of new signups<br></div><div>"repairing" the map by re-adding old tags so that things work again in<br></div><div>their setup... hence, ignoring the consumers would come back to haunt us.)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Then when we have the technical plan thought out, we'd have to start<br></div><div>campaigning, on two levels - one, getting the major software products<br></div><div>that work with OSM data like the editors, osm-carto etc., to support the<br></div><div>plan, and two, convincing mappers that the time has come for this great<br></div><div>new feature which will be available soon. This will require some<br></div><div>"project management" in the form of someone keeping track of which<br></div><div>software already supports the new stuff and which still needs to be<br></div><div>modified. And of course this will require the right combination of<br></div><div>carrot and stick - if you go to an editor writer and say "you have to do<br></div><div>this because we decided it" then that's practically a guarantee for them<br></div><div>to stubbornly ignore the issue and say "fine, then you can decide to<br></div><div>write an editor that supports it".<br></div><div><br></div><div>So I don't think change on that scale is impossible but it's a big<br></div><div>project, and it would require someone to commit to that, concentrate on<br></div><div>that, do a lot of actual work. It is much more than just writing a<br></div><div>proposal, getting 20 votes on it, and calling for the deprecation of<br></div><div>something or other. Most people just don't care enough to invest that<br></div><div>amount of work. Firing off a couple postings about how it would be nice<br></div><div>to have X is cheap.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Bye<br></div><div>Frederik<br></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div>Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"<br></div><div><br></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div>Tagging mailing list<br></div><div>Tagging@openstreetmap.org<br></div><div>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div> </body>
</html>