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

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 8 23:58:26 UTC 2020


There is a problem in that currently different regions tag differently.

There is another problem, who is the authority?  The single vocal mapper or
the more silent ones who just map?

The first step might be to list the tagging standards we agree on and I
suspect there will be fewer members of this group than you might expect.

Cheerio John



On Mon, Jun 8, 2020, 19:26 Phil Wyatt <phil at wyatt-family.com> wrote:

> 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
>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> 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/20200608/637ab579/attachment.htm>


More information about the osmf-talk mailing list