[Tagging] Successful proposal

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Wed Oct 13 09:55:06 BST 2010


Am 13.10.2010 10:30, schrieb Lennard:
> On 13-10-2010 9:43, Peter Körner wrote:
>
>> I contacted him and we're still in a very interesting discussion. His
>> opinion is, that the map-features should list the *most common used*
>> features and it's clear that with 500 uses, craft does not fall into
>> this category. So I can accept this tag not being listed on map-features
>> but findable via a the search. This is a definition problem of what
>> should be on the map-features page.
>
> And how exactly would the craft tag become widely used if people have to
> out on a limb to find it, exactly because it's not mentioned in the Map
> Features? This will only hamper adoption.

The same way as other features that are in common use and (even still) 
not listed on Map Features (like the ski piste stuff).

If people want to use such a feature, it will be often mentioned in the 
ML and alike as a possible solution.

If people actually like the concept, they will use it often -> which 
makes it *then* a good candidate for Map Features.


Don't get me wrong: I'm not against craft.

It just happened too often that people added (sometimes bogus) stuff to 
Map Features just because they wanted it to be used more often or widely 
known - and then the real discussions even started.

It should be the other way round: Map Features should contain stuff that 
already *is* in wide use, not what should become.

Regards, ULFL

P.S: In fact I like most of the craft entries and think craft is a good 
addition to existing features. So my feeling is that it will be used 
often, so there should be enough entries in OSM to be added to Map 
Features pretty soon - but not yet :-)



More information about the Tagging mailing list