[Osmf-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

Phil Wyatt phil at wyatt-family.com
Mon Jun 8 23:24:42 UTC 2020


Hi Folks,

 

I would also support point 2 of Craigs email - a formal curation process for
tags. It seems to me this is the biggest issue that seems to cause angst to
some OSM users and, depending on its implementation, could also be used by
any editing software. I also think it could be extended to include how tags
would be validated. This would mean that developers could concentrate on the
actual interface more so than dealing with squabbles about which
tagging/validation is correct. OSMF should 'own' the tagging system and the
developers just do the implementation of that 'certified agreed system'.

 

As a user, the hardest thing is to find a central definitive list of
'approved tags' and how they should be used.

 

Cheers - Phil

 

From: Craig Allan <allan at iafrica.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 9 June 2020 6:22 AM
To: osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Osmf-talk] Toward resolution of controversies related to iD

 

Chair and Members,

 

1: A multi-purpose appeal process is a useful suggestion. I'd suggest it
follows an escalating conflict resolution process, for example: mediation
first, arbitration second and thirdly some limited appeal to higher
authority.  It would be a service to the contesting parties, not a
quasi-judicial body.  I'd also suggest that the conflict resolution service
should be made a formal, well specified function of a committee of the OSMF
on the grounds that if it is not someone's job then nobody will do it.

 

2: A formal curation process for tags would be very welcome. I think the
exploratory approach of 'any tags you like' has worked, but now has had its
day. The issues with iD are largely an outcome of this problem. The next
phase is to put in place a formal specification for tags serviced by a
proper process to manage tag create-amend-delete events. I predict that
editor and renderer developers will weep with joy if this is passed.

 

3: I don't think OSMF as a body should be making recommendations to the iD
team in a public report.  Not that the recommendations are not good, it is
just that the approach seems a bit heavy handed in a peer to peer situation.
I believe we should regard the report as a position paper, not as an
instruction, and rewrite it as such.  I do understand that there have
already been consultations with the iD team and they have seen the document
in its current form so this comment may be a bit late and possibly
ill-informed..

 

best regards

Craig ALLAN

(OSM: cRaIgalLAn)

 

 

On 2020/06/05 23:46, Allan Mustard wrote:

Dear OSMF Members,

Please find attached a request for comment on possible approaches to
resolving controversies related to upgrades to and modifications of the iD
editor.  Please send back any responses via this mailing list.

Thank you.

Allan Mustard
Chairperson, OSMF Board of Directors





_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org> 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20200609/9f2607af/attachment.htm>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list