[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

Kevin Kenny kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com
Mon Oct 7 20:40:34 UTC 2019


On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 3:13 PM Michael Patrick <geodesy99 at gmail.com> wrote:

> rarely are doers and users exposed to the full complexity, just the simple subset of what is needed for a particular use case.

I think that's a claim that needs to be demonstrated. Certainly, the
complexity of the contact:* schema and the variety of both editors and
data consumers has proven to be a barrier to widespread acceptance.

> '... many on both sides who insist that their way is the one true way' is essentially a manifestation of of the 'Blind men and an elephant' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#The_parable ) situation. While all the blind men will never agree, if the blind men with the ear, the trunk, and the tusk ask questions of someone that can see the whole elephant, they can come up with a functional meaning that covers the at least the head. There's probably no 'tagging' situation in OSM that wasn't solved by the resolution of Electronic data interchange (EDI) issues in the period between 1970 to 1998.

Reconciling an EDI standard with a 'folksonomy' rather boggles the
mind. It would perhaps have been better had OSM started with more
structure than a bucket of 'keyword=value' tags, but it didn't.
(Moreover, since the space of feature types being mapped is still
expanding, the space of available tags needs to expand with it; a
fixed schema isn't quite going to work.)

Of course, pursuing tagging uniformity within reason is a worthy goal,
and I'm convinced you're on the side of the angels, but it's likely to
be a long uphill road to get from where we are to where you want to
be.

Also, obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

-- 
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin



More information about the Tagging mailing list