[Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Fri Jun 8 12:26:19 UTC 2018


 >> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
>> appropriate?

> Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion
> for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags
> have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags
> have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.

Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to consider
supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass?

>> At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki
>> pages?

> Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or
> vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.

That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider
supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools?


2018-06-08 13:55 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <osm at imagico.de>:

> On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote:
> > Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I
> > didn't see  anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system -
> > derailing the community processes" .
>
> Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional from
> my point of view with a lot of dogmatism on the side of of the 'key
> systematics fraction' and insistent refusal to look outside the own
> filter bubble and to accept the existence of other valid world views.
>
> Citing once again from Andy's earlier mail:
>
> > The tagging list does occasionally fall into the wiki-hole of trying
> > to tell people how to map rather than communally deciding the best
> > way to map something (including by looking at how people already
> > do).  In any situation where you're trying to suggest that "everybody
> > else is wrong" you need to get over it, and OSM in particular has
> > thrived where other similar projects failed simply because people can
> > always find a way of expressing a particular concept - they can
> > create a way of representing it themselves without a "domain expert"
> > creating it for them first. There may well be a concept out there
> > waiting to be mapped that needs a "landcover" tag (and it might be
> > "municipal greenery"), but it's not grass or trees.
>
> There is a fine line between having a passionate opinion about something
> and being so convinced about the righteousness of your cause that you
> drift into dogmatism and intolerance.
>
> > At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is
> > appropriate?
>
> Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion
> for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag.  Tags
> have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags
> have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think.  Of course every
> maintainer is free to base decisions on any criteria they see fit.
>
> > At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki
> > pages?
>
> Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or
> vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki.
>
> --
> Christoph Hormann
> http://www.imagico.de/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>



-- 
Vr gr Peter Elderson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180608/91591d68/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list