[OSM-talk] How to map cemetery ?
waldo000000 at gmail.com
Thu Sep 10 12:16:53 BST 2009
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:25 PM, David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com> wrote:
>> If you don't care, fine. But please don't suggest things that you
>> admit aren't good solutions.
> I'm not suggesting it - that's the way it already is.
You said "Just treat them as synonyms". It sounded like a suggestion to me.
> And I think the discussion of committees to decide or better voting is a
> hiding to nothing so long as a sizeable proportion of the community doesn't
> believe in it, as they'll just carry on doing what they've always done.
> They've stopped even contributing to these discussions, they just get on
> with it.
You're forgetting about the people who have yet to start mapping (who
will outnumber the 150,000 current members within, say, a year?!
I know the first thing I did when I started was to visit the map
features wiki page. That page is important. And as Ciaran points out,
whether we like it or not, editor presets are also important.
> If we want OSM to be adopted at the data level, we have to stop changing
> tags because people think they look prettier. It's like MS changing the file
> format for Word with no compatibility support - a sure fire way to lose
> customers. Backward compatibility hasn't been too much of an issue within a
> closed community of consumer tools, but that's changing and if we don't take
> backward compatibility seriously, we'll end up staying just a closed
> And before someone says "but that means you can never change anything" I'm
> not saying that, merely that it needs a much less casual approach to
> changing things, especially for aesthetic reasons which this essentially is,
> than dealing with new ones which can be dealt with more freely.
So is your point: "we need a much less casual approach to changing
things for aesthetic reasons"? What approach would you suggest?
More information about the talk