[Tagging] Fuzzy areas again: should we have them or not?

[Andy Townsend]

Hi all,

I'll reply to this as me since the DWG's ticketing system was cc:ed on 
this mail and we can't reply from there because the messages will bounce.

On 21/12/2020 15:42, Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 8:01 AM Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org 
> <mailto:frederik at remote.org>> wrote:
>
>     Our current data model is not suitable for mapping fuzzy areas. We can
>     only do "precise". Also, as you correctly pointed out, or basic
>     tenet of
>     verifiability doesn't work well with fuzzy data.
>
>
> The current data model works just fine for fuzzy areas: it requires a 
> polygon combined with tagging that indicates that the area is 
> "fuzzy".  Since the current data model allows both polygons and tags, 
> fuzzy areas could be mapped just fine from a technical standpoint.
>
(snipped discussion)
>
> Since "fuzzy areas" are allegedly harmful to the database and data 
> model, will the DWG be taking swift and immediate action to delete the 
> 49 objects currently harming the database by the use of the "fuzzy" key?
>
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=fuzzy 
> <https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=fuzzy>

Has the DWG ever taking swift and immediate action to enforce a 
particular tagging scheme?  We've certainly taken swift and immediate 
action to reverse the deletion of countries that someone didn't like, 
and to remove genitalia from the front lawn of the White House, but I 
can't think of an occasion when we've enforced a particular tagging 
scheme in that way.

The nearest recent example that I can remember was us having to "pick a 
side" in the Chesapeake Bay debacle 
(https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2020-November/056426.html 
), but that was essentially just a revert to the "status quo ante" so 
that normal coastline processing could continue.


>
> Further, since we have free tagging, there is nothing preventing 
> mappers (especially ones not party to these conversations) from adding 
> additional fuzzy areas to the database, mapped with some invented 
> scheme, and potentially even creating data consumers to consume such 
> invented tagging.  Many tagging schemes in OSM have arisen in this manner.
>
> I think we need to know whether these comments represent the opinion 
> of the DWG, and whether the DWG is signaling to the community that 
> they will be taking a heavy-handed approach against mappers that 
> invent schemes for or create fuzzy areas through the principle of free 
> tagging.


People add new stuff to OSM all the time, and invent new tagging 
schemes.  As long as it's possible to retag later when something better 
comes along, that's fine.  People who try and use the data may well say 
"I can't possibly use data tagged like that, I'll just ignore it", and 
that's fine too.  As long as proponents of the new scheme don't try and 
misrepresent it (e.g. have the wiki say that it is really popular when 
it isn't), or mechanically edit existing data to match it, or misuse an 
existing key in some way, I can't see why anyone would want to purge a 
new key from the database.

Best Regards,

Andy (from the DWG)

PS (not with a DWG hat on): Just to pick up on one other thing- as some 
people may know, the last time "tagging list mail volume" was mentioned 
I wrote https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/SomeoneElse/diary/393175 .  
By my reckoning, Anders is only in 5th place this month on the tagging 
list in terms of number of posts, and is some considerable way off the 
all-time record (someone managed 132 personal posts one month earlier 
this year).  How we try and map fuzzy stuff is worth discussing, even if 
with a rendering hat on I'm still in the "I can't possibly use data 
tagged like that, I'll just ignore it" corner on that one.  Mind you, I 
didn't think that anyone would do anything useful with site relations, 
and openinframap does.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201223/d76cafe1/attachment-0001.htm>