[Tagging] This list requires moderation

[stevea]

On Feb 9, 2021, at 10:24 AM, Diego Cruz <ginkarasu at gmail.com> wrote:
> ...to natural features in Sweden. With some moderation their efforts shouldn't be so exhausting.

I'd like to amplify my position towards Anders' approach to improving natural features in Sweden.  As I hope I made clear in my many replies to him (on-list and off, which he didn't answer), I fully support improving natural features as they were discussed, as there are real difficulties and concepts like "fuzzy" to clarify and better establish.  The also-difficult topic of tagging while expecting rendering performance "with a certain appearance" is something that remains problematic, OSM being a data project, not necessarily one that offers a "soup to nuts" complete solution of data entry AND the intrinsic inclusion of specifically-rendered maps.  IMO, this latter point isn't a problem in or with OSM, though it seems to continue to be a problem in the minds of some (newer, less familiar) contributors.  This should be something OSM addresses through better communication of basic points like "OSM is a data project" and "don't map for the renderer..." but we must improve explaining why and what to do about this when such "holes" in understanding our project frustrate people.  OSM doesn't want to frustrate, even if we do sometimes.

I don't wish to sound immodest as I say this, but I was acting as a (self-appointed) moderator to Anders, addressing his tone and negativity, while agreeing with the "problems" (unsolved tagging challenges) he brought to this list — and that they deserve effort on the part of the thoughtful people who might solve them by participating here.  It is certainly possible (and actually happens) that truly deserving issues present here with a tone that is demanding, insulting and entitled — unacceptable behavior, really — even as the issues are real and worthy of thoughtful consideration and good discussion.  That's what happened in this case.  That did deserve some moderation, and the list (while apparently exhausted by it — I certainly sensed this while it was underway) didn't shut me down / tell me to stop or call me ineffective (on-list or off) as I did.

Yes, it was exhausting for all involved:  me, Anders and no doubt the list.  I attribute this to the very-apparent-to-me mismatch between the decorum of politeness we expect here being violated by the original poster's insistence that we cater to his whims, since we were a "broken map" that didn't meet his rendering expectations (as he compared us to his "gold standard" of national maps, setting his expectations of what maps "should" look like in his part of the world).

I do not like that it was so exhausting.  However, I have no regrets for (that short time) wearing a self-appointed moderator's hat to calm the choppy waters of a sometimes-necessary discussion:  that of not addressing not only some basic misunderstandings (rendering is the realm of renderers, not necessarily of tagging, even though they are related, not always obviously) but of the attitude of coming to this list with the distinctly insulting tone of "this isn't even a 'real' map" and a deep sense of entitlement that we cater to one mappers localized "gold standard" expectations.  That is a fine line to walk, may yet today remain unclear in the minds of some and so deserves at least this restatement here and now to better clarify.

I don't wish to be a moderator here, expecting that my (and others') good behavior and generally helpful tone will model how we want interactions on this list to be:  cordial, thoughtful, contributory (not subtractive), productive and if critical, at least constructive in its criticism.  Solutions to better moderation on this list must be wide and inclusive, I support all which are.  Importantly, they must address "poor tone," insulting-to-OSM behavior and a sense of entitlement in requests (or even demands) for what they are.  This should result in "catching early, catching often" what we wish to NOT see here, while explaining why to those who (wisely) "read before they post" to capture a sense of what is expected decorum.  I don't know if I did a fantastic job of that with Anders (it was difficult), but it does seem it was effective.  (Though, I'm not sure of how much work addressing Anders' truly-worthy issues continue to be addressed, discussed or thought of off-list and in more-local contexts).  When all is working well, such exemplary behavior (the better the better!) can inspire.

In short, there are better ways and poor ways to post here.  When / as we identify the poor examples as they happen, and why, we moderate this list.  Other forms of moderation (like pre-screening every post) do so as well, but with much more effort and maybe only marginally better success.  "Self-policing" can work if it is "watched for effectiveness" by the greater tagging list community.  Ideally, this produces a feedback loop that self-corrects without difficult amounts of effort.

Thank you for reading.