[Tagging] Nuclear Key

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Sun Apr 3 09:26:49 BST 2011

Am 03.04.2011 04:26, schrieb David Murn:
> On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 12:11 +0200, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>> *... and I'll especially call it wiki fiddling if the currently widely
>> used tags are removed from the wiki without even keeping a note of the
>> old tags.*
> Doesnt the fact that the proposal exists, outlining the change from the
> old to new tags, cover the 'note of the old tags' that you ask for?

No. If a tag is in wide use, it's not ok to remove that information from 
the corresponding wiki page. Period. It's not enough that you may find 
it at some proposal pages.

> Should all tagging proposals be put through a proposal, a discussion,
> RFC and voting stages, and then be passed onto another group of 'people
> who know exactly what theyre doing' (but apparently dont use the tag, or
> participate in the tagging discussions), so that they can either vote or
> veto it?

No, it's not about power in the project. If someone changes a wiki page 
of a widely used tag, it's a *must* to keep information of the current 
way. Otherwise people finding the tag in the osm data, they are forced 
to search, which is not ok. The wiki page should inform the user about 
the current status of the tag, mentioning both there's a way the tag was 
used for quite a while and there's a proposed new way of doing things.

If the author is not able to write this down in an informative way, 
he/she shouldn't change the wiki.

>> P.S.: I have helped to transform the formerly used tagging schema, e.g.
>> man_made=power_wind to the current one because the initial way really
>> lacked a lot of things. The recent change causes a lot of trouble and
>> doesn't add a lot of benefit the way it is done.
> I dont remember seeing your name in any of the discussions, and a quick
> search through the wiki doesnt find your name linked with power or
> generators.  Out of interest, how come its okay for you to transform a
> tagging schema, but its not okay for a community-agreed change to the
> scheme to take place?

It's community agreed if the majority of mappers use this tag, not when 
some people "voted" upon it.

> Did your 'transform'ing of the schema get
> presented on tagging@ on the power page, or have any voting?  If not,
> how can you call this case wiki-fiddling and yours not?

At that time, the tagging@ list didn't even existed.

Regards, ULFL

More information about the Tagging mailing list