dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Jun 20 09:21:40 UTC 2018
2018-06-19 16:06 GMT+02:00 Bryan Housel <bhousel at gmail.com>:
> > This is not the first time, and you have stated more than once your idea
> of tag creation and endorsement is top down, with the software maintainer
> deciding the tags on the input side, sweeping away the confusing plurality
> of comunity created tags.
> That’s not really what I think - are you sure I said that?
this is what I understood from the messages you recently sent here, e.g.:
"We have too many tags for different kinds of lifeguards. This is too
confusing. I don’t want to have to show all these choices to iD users. ...
Let’s just use one tag *`emergency=lifeguard`*" (note that this tag has 6 /
six uses and its use is conflicting with documented and more established
tags because of overlap and using the same key) .
You also wrote: "It kind of makes one question whether a community edited
wiki is a good way to standardize a tagging scheme intended to produce a
coherant mapping dataset. Bold suggestion: maybe the people who write the
tools should just get together over beers and decide what all the tags
should be. I’ll buy!"
> I think the community should continue to invent tags, but if the tags that
> aren’t very good (as decided by people who work on software), I think we
> should have a process for replacing them. You're right that this has been
> going on for a while, but starting now I’m trying to involve the community
> more rather than just changing things in the editor.
I appreciate you recognize there should be a process, but I wouldn't call
your current way of interacting with the community an involvement in the
decision making. You make the decisions and then communicate here what it
is and ask to "please update the wiki".
> > There is no reason you shouldn't properly document the changes in
> tagging recommendation in the wiki via a proposal like all other mappers
> and developers do.
> Proposals don’t work - see `transit:lanes`.. see the long thread about
> `landcover vs landuse`. etc. etc.
> This is the main reason I’ve decided to step up and take the lead on these
> The old process wasn’t working.
At least the old process lead us until here, I agree with Frederik that
"taking the lead on tagging" is clearly overstepping your mandate, in the
most sensitive and essential field.
iD is not an editor like the rest, it is the "official" / default editor of
the OSMF, it is the main, OSMF endorsed editor. The scope of the OSMF is
(beside others) :
- Supports a diverse community
- Affirms tagging conventions, mediates tagging conflicts
- Does not decide what to map or how to map
The operation of the OSMF editor should not be in conflict with the OSMF
> ... (and no, debating tags on a mailing list is not meaningful work).
can you please clarify, do you mean debating tags is never meaningful work,
or whether it is not meaningful to debate them on a mailing list?
> I’m happy to do the work on the editor side, but we need people to work on
> actual tag migrations (either manually or via automated scripts), and we
> need a dedicated corps of volunteers who care about making the wiki simple
> and accurate.
I am sure almost all wiki editors care a lot about making the wiki simple
and accurate. One reason for the existing complexity is, that we are
mapping the whole world. What might be logical, implicit, necessary or
unnecessary from a certain point of view / context will not necessarily be
so also in other parts of the world. Nobody can see the whole picture,
therefor it is important that the tagging development is done by a diverse
community, and not just by one or a few software developers.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging