[OSM-dev] The wiki defines the database (was: relations)

[jim at cloudmade.com]

Third possibility...

I think that crrowd sourcing itself is actually different (in general  
and not just OSM being different).

In the case of OSM we clearly see emergent 'standards' and 'models,   
These are codefied in the wiki and, more importantly, in the tools  
that realize the data into maps, routes, geo-coded results etc.   
Editors want their data on maps (and routes etc.) and so try to make  
it useful and findable (just like photo taggers are trying to get  
their photos found).  And they share information about how to do it in  
the wiki.

The wiki emerges from the practices of the community AND serves as a  
reference point to document and debate/discuss these.

In the end the apps developers who realize the data will use the most  
descriptive and useful methods that exist in the data and participate  
in the wiki and mail list debate on best practices.  They reward the  
most useful and used models by showing that data.  (Hence a good  
address finder will show what is tagged to it's understanding and the  
crowd will move to tag that way - or reject it and up will pop new  
address finders.  And evolution continues.)

The genius of a good crowd sourced project (and OSM is very good) is  
that the data being sourced AND the encoding model itself are BOTH  
crowd sourced.  This fuels the evolution.

When you think about it, it is the obvious thing to do, but then, most  
really good ideas are both simple and obvious in retrospect.

Cheers,


Jim Brown -CTO CloudMade

(Sent from my iPhone)

On 5 Nov 2008, at 02:36, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>> Yes that is very cumbersome but how often does this happen, and does
>> it really warrant that flippant attitude? Having a better way to
>> handle multiple meanings of tags might help.
>
> The core of this "flippant attitude" is easily explained.
>
> When OSM was started - that was before my time, so I'm just telling
> other people's stories here - it was not the only collaborative  
> mapping
> project around.
>
> Other, "competing" projects started out by first trying to set up a  
> good
> tagging scheme (an "ontology" as people say) for everything, and never
> got far beyond that.
>
> OpenStreetMap didn't bother, and just started mapping -  
> differentiating,
> initially, only between railway, waterway and highway and that was it.
>
> Things evolved from there to where we are now; OSM has swept away
> anything remotely comparable.
>
> Like many computer people, my instinct is to do exactly what the  
> failed
> projects have done; it is what you are taught at uni or in the
> workplace: Analyse problem, make data model, acquire data, process  
> data.
> OpenStreetMap managed to largely skip the initial phases, going  
> against
> perceived wisdom, and it worked out well.
>
> Now, with the ever larger influx of new people to the project, this
> "perceived wisdom", this "how things are usually done", comes in  
> through
> the back door. There's not a single day where you don't hear somebody
> say "but we need a unified tagging scheme", "everybody needs to adhere
> to the same standard", "it will never work otherwise", "the data  
> will be
> useless unless everybody means the same". (But "it will never work" is
> something that has been said about OSM from day one.)
>
> Things that are special about OSM, things that have been OSM's  
> strengths
> in the past, are often unreflectedly discounted as weaknesses by these
> newcomers: "Any database must ... blah blah blah ... lest it is
> completely useless."
>
> There are two possibilities:
>
> 1. OpenStreetMap did the right thing initially, but what was the right
> thing *then* is not the right thing *now* anymore; we really need  
> strict
> standards, a body to govern them, a dictionary of approved tags, and
> editors that will only allow you to tag things differently if you  
> press
> "I am sure" three times. That is, as far as I can see, the model that
> Google's Map Maker uses.
>
> 2. OpenStreetMap is really different from anything else, the usual  
> rules
> do not apply, and trying to apply perceived wisdom to OSM will break
> what is precious about it. The people calling for standards, rules,
> unified tagging and all that are just not flexible enough; they think
> they know what works and what doesn't, and fail to see that OSM is a
> different environment to which they cannot simply transport their
> experiences from the workplace or from software projects or from  
> Wikipedia.
>
> I tend to assume that 2. is correct and I also tend to make fun of  
> those
> who, I like to think, cannot adapt their brains to something that  
> works
> differently. But it is very well possible that I am wrong, or that at
> least situation 1. will be true at some time in the near future.
>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23 
> '33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> dev mailing list
> dev at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev