[Tagging] How to overcome lack of consensus
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Sep 16 17:35:19 UTC 2013
2013/9/16 Matthijs Melissen <info at matthijsmelissen.nl>
> Dear all,
> There are some OpenStreetMap features for which there is no consensus on
> how to tag them. It does not seem like consensus will arise soon. The lack
> of consensus does cause problems for the Openstreetmap community, though.
> Therefore, it would be good to have ideas or procedures on how to create
> There are currently quite a lot of OpenStreetMap features for which there
> is no consensus on how to tag them. Some examples (but I'm sure there are
> many more):
> - What is the difference between highway=footway and highway=path?
> - What is the right scheme for tagging public transport?
there is no problem, the solution are additional tags like foot=designated.
The 2 public transport schemes can coexist AFAIK.
> - Is an unsurfaced residential road a track?
AFAIK there is consensus that a residential road is a residential road
aside from the surface qualities and that a track is something different
(and could well be paved).
> - Should we use shop=betting or shop=bookmaker?
you can use both
> - Should we use shop=fishmonger or shop=seafood?
does seafood include fish from fresh water?
> - Should we use office=estate_agent or shop=estate_agent?
an office is something that doesn't have general access by the public,
while a shop would allow you to drop by any time they are open (usually).
> - Should we use shop=tailor or craft=tailor?
you can use both, if its a craftsman. Again, a shop should be publicly
accessible, while a craft would not necessarily be accessible without
> The lack of consensus becomes clear by the fact that there are
> discrepancies between documentation on the wiki, the outcome of a voting,
> actual use (as documented on Taginfo, for example), and what editors and
> renderers support.
yes, but all of them could deal with the situations.
The lack of consensus creates several problems. These problems include the
> - Multiple parallel tagging schemes and unclear documentation creates
> confusion for newcomers.
> - Users are often advised not to follow the documentation on the wiki, and
> to look at Taginfo instead. This makes the wiki useless. It also leads to
> the fact that hardly anybody bothers to edit the wiki anymore.
> - If mappers should follow current use of tags, then it becomes very hard
> to introduce new tagging schemes, such as the office= and craft= keys.
> - Multiple tagging schemes creates problems for the implementation of data
> users (renderers, routers).
> It does not look like consensus on these issues will form naturally, as
> there many of them exist for multiple years, and I hardly see any
> initiative to do something about them. Most users seem to accept that there
> are controversies, instead of trying to come to a solution. I think there
> is nothing wrong with a temporary period in which two tagging schemes are
> used in parallel, but permanent lack of consensus creates problems for the
> Rather than trying to solve the individual cases where there is a lack of
> consensus, I think we should first try to agree on a procedure on how to
> solve these issues. For example, we might try to answer the following
> - What should be the process to create consensus?
> - Should we recommend (new) users to follow the wiki, actual usage
> (Taginfo), or the votings?
> - Should we recommend data users and editors to follow the wiki, actual
> usage (Taginfo), or the votings?
> - Should the wiki be adapted to actual usage (Taginfo) and/or to votings?
> - Should we allow automatic edits in simple cases (such as bookmaker
> versus betting), or leave the process of standardisation to local
I would like to thank anyone responding in advance for his/her feedback.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
Martin Koppenhoefer (Dipl-Ing. Arch.)
Via del Santuario Regina degli Apostoli, 18
tel1: +39 06.916508070
tel2: +49 30 868708638
mobil: +39 392 3114712
mobil: +49 1577 7793740
mk at koppenhoefer.com
Diese Nachricht wurde manuell erstellt. Wir bemühen uns um fehlerfreie
Korrespondenz, dennoch kann es in Ausnahmefällen vorkommen, dass bei der
manuellen Übertragung von Informationen in elektronische Medien die
übertragenen Informationen Fehler aufweisen. Wir bitten Sie, dies zu
Any views or opinions are solely those of the author and do not necessarily
represent those of koppenhoefer.com unless specifically stated.
This email and any files attached are confidential and intended solely for
the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify
postmaster at koppenhoefer.com
Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
our clients and business, we may monitor and read messages sent to and from
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging