<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt'>
<p>Hi Frederik, I couldn't disagree more. First of all because it is incoherent with nowadays reality. What you are saying is that there should be/are basically no enforceable tagging rules because I see they are being enforced from time to time. Enforceable in the sense of someone tagging against established consensus (whatever this is and however this is measured), thus being corrected and upon insisting and starting a tagging war being banned, e.g. based on this assumption a lot of questions arise:</p>
<p>Let's imagine there is a new motorway build in a country, I map it from scratch and tag it as highway=fast_road. Very likely this will be either changed to "trunk" or "primary" because this is the consensus that our community has agreed upon. According to you, why should I bother about what the wiki says? In the end it is just a kind suggestion and I don't like being bullied around with strict rules. I am not free to use any tag I like? Who are tho others trying to impose their criteria over mine? Maybe I am alone and they are more but who said they represented the whole community? How many voices are enough to be considered community consensus?</p>
<p>Why is JOSM warning when it detects tags such as "is_in"? What if I like "is_in", so why does it bully me to not use it? Anyway, who makes the rules in this project? Who invented the "any tag you like" paradigm and what evidence is there that the community supports this paradigm? Was there a vote for "any tag you like" and if there was, what meaning would it have anyway? Taking into consideration there are millions of contributors worldwide, what sense does it make to have votes and different mailing lists when the ones participating are only a tiny fracture of the community and decisions and votes turn out to be nothing more than a bar chat for those who have too much spare time so we can align among us 20 or 30 on how to tag something for fun within our nerd bubble?</p>
<p>All the above is of course rhetorical. The freedom of OSM should be related to the freedom of the data, not something like free speech in order to express yourself artistically as an individual. I firmly defend that OSM needs rules to maintain data consistency. These rules need to be established somehow (and it should be our highest priority to get this process right to make sure everybody can participate) and there might be some that don't like them but this is how a collaborative project works: We build something together and agree on how to do it. Right now it seems more like the opposite, we discuss a lot and then everybody walks off and people will eventually do as they please anyway. We absolutely need mechanisms to take real decisions and if, as you have correctly pointed out, there are always the same few 30 nerds that take them we need to involve more people - the more the better. Imagine thousands debating about tags - we probably would need other tools than just a mailing list to tackle the challenge. But this doesn't make the need for rules go away.</p>
<p>I challenge all of you to provide an short answer: In an ideal world, do you at least agree on the desirability to have a database which is consistent? Would you consider it positive if people voluntarily tagged in an aligned manner? Because if the answer is no than the whole discussion is pointless.</p>
<p>The more OSM advances the more it reflects the huge complexity of our planet. We are not only tagging streets, buildings, lakes and wood areas anymore but highly complex turn lanes, kerbs and opening hours depending on if it is for the kitchen, the reception or phone service of a POI. We tag highly complex access restrictions, 3D building parts, lifecycle and playground elements. Complex tagging needs require complex tagging rules that are correctly applied to ensure a consistent data model. It might be different communities want to handle tags differently, which is perfectly fine. Addresses in Italy are done very differently in Italy and German. This is ok as long as it is documented as a guideline and enforceable. If we don't accomplish this, data users and apps will have more and more problems in coming years to actually process our data in a reasonable way which is the worst that can happen: Useless data sitting in a database, gathered for nothing but to feed the individual satisfaction of those who like to know that they did it "their way".</p>
<p>One word regarding newbies: I dare saying that most don't know about this discussion and what lies behind. People are thankful for clear rules and the feeling they are doing it right to make sure the data they contribute will later be used and available for the general good. For them the Wiki is the book of rules and they will follow it. I recommend not telling them about "any tag you like" to prevent taking away their illusions as they might be deterred. Would I have called "unclassified roads" as such? No I wouldn't, but it doesn't matter, it is just words: I read the wiki, I understand what it means and I tag it, as easy as that.</p>
<p>And a final reflection: If what has been claimed is true the real power of the project relies in the editors. If there is no rule except for the the tag use reflected in taginfo then controlling what enters the database is the key. Looks like instead of reading hundreds and thousands of mails on various lists it is more efficient to put your effort in implementing you preferred tagging scheme in an ID fork and get people to use it. Do we want this?</p>
<p>Thanks for the patience,</p>
<p>Marcos (Mar Mar)</p>
<p><br /></p>
<p>Am 21.03.2021 12:44, schrieb Frederik Ramm:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" style="padding: 0 0.4em; border-left: #1010ff 2px solid; margin: 0"><!-- html ignored --><!-- head ignored --><!-- meta ignored -->
<div class="pre" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; font-family: monospace"><span style="white-space: nowrap;">Hi,</span><br /> <br /> the reason that the wording on the wiki is usually weak is that there is only a handful of people who control what goes on the wiki and this handful of people does not have authority.<br /> <br /> A handful of people deciding that "we would recommend to use another tag instead of this one" is just about acceptable.<br /> <br /> A handful of people saying (and I quote your draft) "It is highly discouraged to use or interpret this tag" crosses a line.<br /> <br /> Who are we here on the tagging list - who are those 20 or 30 who might participate in a vote - to decree that something is "highly discouraged"?<br /> <br /> If you want to go down this route then you need to drop the authoritative "it is discouraged" language and instead say: "The following group of 30 people think that you should not be using this tag any more", with a link to the vote. (And allow others to add a banner that says "and here's another 30 who think differently").<br /> <br /> This tagging list and the whole wiki voting system are good enough to make (weak) recommendations, but they are not good enough to "highly discourage" anything or make binding decisions. Before doing that you need to overhaul the whole mechanism that would lead to such a "highly discouraged" verdict. You would have to ensure that people from all over OSM could participate in the discussion and vote (including those who don't speak English).<br /> <br /> I don't think this is a proposal that can even go forward. The group of people that would eventually be voting does not have the authority to make that decision. If this vote were carried through and you were to put a "highly discouraged" banner on every page that describes a deprecated feature, I might have to put another banner on top of that which says "the wording of the following banner is disputed in the OSM community".<br /> <br /> Bye<br /> Frederik</div>
</blockquote>
<p><br /></p>
</body></html>