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

[Andy Allan]

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Sebastian Spaeth <sebastian at sspaeth.de> wrote:
> Erik Johansson wrote:
>>>> Real mappers don't document; their tags are enough.  Wannabe mappers
>>>> read documentation and follow templates. So how should you become a
>>>> mapper if there is no documentation. There is a lack of people who are
>>>> willing to write something on the wiki, not too many.
>>> there have been occasions when "real" mappers have documented their
>>> tags on the wiki, only to have the wiki pages overwritten by someone
>>> else's "better ideas". maybe this puts some people off?
>>
>> 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.
>
> Often enough that I have stopped caring about what the wiki says.

I've been hit by it a few times, and one specific case that annoys me
greatly. I invented a tag by using it (OMG!!), and then even rendering
it. Other people started using it. Then the wiki-types made up their
own alternative tag without making any reference to the existing ones
that were in the db and being rendered. So I realised it was about
time to document the already-in-use, already-rendered tag, which
triggered a virulent campaign by the wiki-types to repeatedly delete
the information that I had put up, ignore the evidence from the
database, claim voting was the be-all and end-all, and label tags that
are (still) in use and (still) rendered as "deprecated".

I've given up almost all hope with the wiki, since there appears to be
no place on it for honest documentation, unless you play by certain
rules which are incompatible with the founding spirit of OSM. So there
are now many features on the cycle map that are completely
undocumented - I'm not stirring the hornets nest any more, I'd rather
concentrate on productive stuff.

Suggestions welcome.

Cheers,
Andy