<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /></head><body style='font-size: 10pt'>
<p>Hi Frederik,</p>
<ul>
<li>But consensus cannot be established by calling for a vote on the tagging<br /> list and assuming that whatever those 30 people say is then the<br /> established consensus.<br /> <br /> In fact, consensus in OSM is usually observed rather than polled. Lots<br /> of people do something the same way for a long time, a consensus<br /> evolves. As in your highway example; this is a tag that has never been<br /> voted on.<br /> <br /> But not: A couple people on the tagging list say that diaper changing<br /> should now be tagged in some particular way, and suddenly this is a<br /> project-wide consensus..</li>
</ul>
<p>For me consensus means that people actively agree on something. Waiting for people to tag consistently by coincidence is not consensus but people in the same boat rowing towards different directions and eventually find out who is the strongest. People tagging according to the wiki because they believe it is the law is not consensus, it is applying a rule. People using presets in an editor without knowing about other options is not consensus because they weren't given a choice. Consensus requires somebody to speak his/her mind and right now, as inefficient as it is, the mailing list and proposal pages are the only place to "officially" do so. We should aim at being more than a couple of people but thousands instead and aim at having the adequate tools to manage all those voices, establishing a consensus. Until then, why don't we accept what we have, a reduced number of people and a proposal process to vote on, and regard this as community consensus? Everybody is free to join and we should promote it. Hopefully many more will do so because the main reason for me to join was the impression I could actually make a change. You are actually stating that proposals and votes are irrelevant (an orientative, kind suggestion = irrelevant). But who wants to join a discussion that sometimes can be exhausting but in the end is irrelevant?</p>
<ul>
<li>It is not just a question of how many. If I can get 100 people from the<br /> city of Karlsruhe to decide on a community consensus for Karlsruhe then<br /> that's a solid decision. Asking these 100 people from Karlsruhe to<br /> decide on a community consensus for all of Germany would be a stretch.<br /> Asking them to decide how things should be mapped in Ghana would be silly.<br /> <br /> The voting method we use for tagging issues is extremely simple. It has<br /> virtually no protection against fraud, it has no conflict of interest<br /> rules, it doesn't ensure that the questions are asked in an unbiased<br /> way, and so on and so on. This is all fine for a somewhat informal<br /> process to come up with recommendations. It is not an iron-clad process<br /> that can be used to make solid decisions about "strongly discouraging"<br /> something.</li>
</ul>
<p>I agree, our voting method is not sophisticated. But is this true because the outcome is irrelevant or vice versa? I believe we should make the vote relevant, create a robust process and then make it the place where consensus happens. I am sure this will trigger an enormous response and many more people will want to get involved. Getting back to your example: What do you mean with "...if I get 100 people..". On which channel would those 100 decide anything? Twitter? Telegram? In a bar meeting? The mailing list? Wherever they do decide, was the decision taken in an unbiased way, secure against fraud and without conflict of interest? Has anybody checked if they really are from Karlsruhe and maybe not some from Berlin? Does this make the decision void and null then? In any case it is out of the question that a predetermined limited number of people can decide anything in OSM.</p>
<p>Maybe we are actually not so far way from each other: If, as in your example, there is a way you consider people coming together and agree as a "solid decision" why should that not be applicable to the rest of the world, provided anybody can freely participate?</p>
<ul>
<li>A good editor will nudge you towards making useful contributions that<br /> both you and the project at large are happy with; though it is the<br /> editor writer's decision how exactly they do it.</li>
</ul>
<p>Are you suggesting that there are some ways of tagging that are more useful than others and find it ok for an editor to take that decision? Looks like a no-brainer to me. Do we want "useful contributions" or not? If the answer is yes lets formally establish consensus and not make sure we prevent those that are not useful.</p>
<ul>
<li>In a way. The rule was there long before most people joined, so they<br /> joined a project that had this rule out of their own free decision. They<br /> could have joined another project instead ;)</li>
</ul>
<p>Looks like we finally have one unbreakable rule. I assume the reference should be the wiki: <a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Any_tags_you_like</a></p>
<p>Following your own criteria: I have checked the number of editors, please feel free to correct me, but I can see exactly 36 to date. Where does it say that this principle is carved into stone? Has there been a vote? Has the whole worldwide community been consulted about this in an unbiased way and with low risk of fraud? Are you stating that these 36 individuals have had the power to determine the course of the project to such enormous extend and at the same time say it is impossible to at least try to work for more tagging and data consistency? Then, there is the content itself - the first sentences state:</p>
<p>"Feel free to invent new tags! Though it is not "feel free to ignore existing tagging schemes..."</p>
<p>"Note: Many general interest features are already on <a class="mw-redirect" title="Map Features" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features">Map Features</a> and it is recommended to use the <a title="Tags" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tags">tagging</a> given there. Otherwise other users might eventually convert your contributions to fit that scheme."</p>
<p>Which is exactly what I am pleading for: A new tagging scheme/modification of tagging scheme is discussed, voted for and approved. After that the corresponding wiki entry is created or the old existing wiki modified. The wiki is where the link above leads to, which means in the end: "Please use the tagging of the wiki (based on processes in which 30 people have discussed and voted for) or other people might retag. Nothing else has Sören requested: Reienforce the message that elements that already have a wiki differently from the wiki is to be HIGHLY discouraged and is prone to be corrected.</p>
<ul>
<li>There will not be one consistent tagging system that works for the whole<br /> planet. I think people will agree on some things and chose to go their<br /> own paths in others, and that's ok.</li>
</ul>
<p>I disgree and I think many people misunderstand the point. I'd never impose ONE single tagging scheme as such for the whole world. The world is indeed too complex. But we can agree to apply different tagging schemes in different contexts. Which means we need more complex rules - not the absence of rules. If the Italian community decides they handle address tagging very different from other countries (for those who don't know: "Housenumbers are usually assigned to the access points of a property (e.g. a gate on the perimeter", even if it is hundreds of meters away from the actual building) that is fine. But this needs to be documented then and regarded as standard. It doesn't make sense to have Italians applying this rule in Germany and Germans tagging in Italy as they are used at home!</p>
<p>So, yes, I vote for giving more "power" to the outcome of votes. During mailing lists debates and the voting process is where consensus should happen. Visible, countable, open to everybody. BTW, we really should consider a proper community communication tool such as e.g. Loomio for the whole community. These mailing lists are a real dread and probably one of the reason why there are so few who participate.</p>
<p>Bye as well,</p>
<p>marcos</p>
<p><br /></p>
</body></html>