[Tagging] solving iD conflict

[Kevin Kenny]

On 5/24/19 6:04 AM, Christoph Hormann wrote:
> This is evidently something that is becoming more and more important as
> OSM grows as a project and it becomes increasingly difficult for a
> single person to be knowledgable about every aspect of it.

In the din of voices here, how does one assess who is most qualified to 
make such decisions? I've asked questions here many times. I never have 
received useful answers, because there is no consensus about anything 
that I've asked about. In some cases the discussion has affected my 
decision, but in those cases the ultimate decision was 'go and map 
something else, because trying to map this feature at all is a political 
nightmare.' The result is that the feature goes unmapped, which is no 
great loss - arguably no loss at all since I simply spend the time on 
mapping something else. I continue listening carefully to this mailing 
list, toping to glean useful information from it. IT SIMPLY NEVER HAPPENS.

The stakes are clearly higher when the decision must be made for a 
common tool that the broader community uses, but why believe that the 
mailing list will be any more useful in that context? This mailing list 
is simply not a useful source of information about current tagging 
practice - it is many opinions about what should be, all presenting 
themselves as if they're authoritative about what actually is. That's 
fine, because we need to hash out what will be good practice moving 
forward, but the list simply cannot serve the two purposes, because 
distinguishing them goes against human nature.

As Frederik points out, we have no central authority. Are you arguing 
that we must constitute one? Otherwise, you can simply argue that any 
decision with which you disagree personally is the result of failing to 
consult a 'sufficiently competent' authority. That will not silence the 
din. Rather, it will make it personal - with people waving about their 
university degrees; academic papers; past or present positions with GIS 
companies, government mapping agencies, or universities; and other 
credentials. The flawed _argumentum ad populum_ that we get from 
techniques such as consulting taginfo or Overpass will be replaced with 
an even worse _argumentum ad verecundiam._

In the absence of a central authority, tools such as taginfo are 
actually the most reliable source. Yes, it's _argumentum ad populum_, 
but truly, what else is there?

Beware of elevating, 'I disagree with this decision,' to, 'the people 
who made this decision were irresponsible. If they had consulted a 
competent authority, they would not have made it.' In this forum, it 
risks being interpreted as an arrogant belief that you are the only 
truly competent authority, unless you accompany it with a proposal for 
constituting a governing body.

Also, be wary of micromanaging volunteer developers. Eventually, they 
all respond with, 'People pay me to do that.'