[Osmf-talk] Tagging standards

[steveaOSM]

On Oct 20, 2022, at 6:48 AM, john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it is fair to say to mappers if you'd like your mapping to be rendered in the mainstream renders then the following "tier one" tags should be used with the proviso that there are regional differences and interpretations which should be respected.

Yes, exactly this; +1.  Though, I also include fair notice / a slight admonishment that this could be seen as "tagging for the renderer."  But, let's be candid:  many users, especially novice users, don't fully understand the full "pipeline" of OSM data:  being in a database, and sometimes even getting rendered).  It certainly is sufficient for data (tagged any old way) to simply be "in" OSM, it might be seen as a "bonus" (even a bit thrilling, at first) for it to be seen as rendered, too — and rather quickly, as in Carto.

There ARE regional differences:  both in the real world and in how OSM tags from region to region.  That is well-established, if not always well-understood or pointed out often enough.

> This doesn't imply these are the only tags that must be used but rather see if one of these tags would work first.

This can be a winning strategy in many cases, but eventually it turns into "grasping at straws" (ineffective at the end of a long-run).  So, what I'm saying is that you can get some mileage out of this, but it won't always work.  It will work often enough to be helpful, though, so I'm another booster who suggests we do this where we can.

> I'm not advocating for completely standardised tags but neither do I think each mapper should have their own completely independent set of tags.  The map functions better with some degree of cooperation.

My point is that there will ALWAYS be this fundamental tension in OSM:  on one side is the reality of "any tags you like," on the other side are the many sorts of real-world needs to have SOME consistency and "push" towards standardization (I use American English and spell such words with a z).  And that as long as we recognize this, talk about it once in a while (like here, that's good), know that there are smart people in our project who can (often, not always) come up with head-nodding, sensible strategies to "work with it" so that we more-often-than-not reach good solutions AND (importantly) make good understanding of these issues become ingrained into our culture, "we're gonna be OK."  Cooperation IS key to this; thanks for reminding us of that, John!

> However I think the discussion here has been constructive, useful and has covered a lot of ground.  If it had taken place in OSM-TALK probably more people would be aware of it but on the other hand the quality of the contributions here has been high and it is something very fundamental to OSM.

A big +1 here.