[Tagging] maxspeed:signed=no - new proposed tag

[stevea]

There appears to be some "wishful mapping" going on, possibly in Volker's proposal.  I agree with Lorenzo:

On Sat, 9 Jan 2021 at 20:34, Lorenzo Mastrogiacomi <lomastrolo at gmail.com> wrote:
> A fixme would make sense if we were to indicate something missing on the map but the proposal is to map something missing on the ground.

What Volker seems to be proposing causes something in my mind to "snap as broken:"
> So this describes exactly what my fixme would do: 
> 	• Mapper A comes along. There is no sign, and he does not know the exact legal situation at this place. He puts a fixme-like tag on that way with the precise code word for "legal situation to be checked and added"
> 	• Mapper B comes along and happens to be a legal expert and resolves mapper A's fixme.
> 
> In addition I fear a mapper may find this thing in the wiki and use it at face value and put it where he sees no speed limit sign on the ground on a road in Padova that has an implicit 50km/h speed limit that has not been mapped because of my laziness.

I don't go to our map data and say "this is broken because I don't know the answer of what will one day eventually become data when an expert notices that I've flagged 'something is missing here in the map' as wrong."  I simply don't do that.  "The chain is too long," or something like that.

Yes, there are people who create Note (nodes, I think) with these sorts of minor errors, I agree it is a useful activity as it adds intelligence to our map about itself.  Those (Notes) happen where there is something I might characterize as "actively wrong" with our map and the "spontaneous generation" of a fixme is a quick way to apply a bandage to a small wound.  Yes, let's make a Note or note to fix that, so / if / as somebody might or can now, that's smart.

The case Volker is talking about, "data are missing here, I don't know what the right data are but I want to say 'missing' here" doesn't seem like a good idea for either a Note or a proposal.  We already know there are zillions of missing data from our map — as I often say, "the map is never done."  That's not a knock / diss / insult, simply recognition that OSM is young and has minor, fixable errors we should call some minor, fixme attention to.  Also, OSM is growing.  Always.  Part of what we do here is grow it as smart as we can.

Volker, don't be so hard on yourself that you are lazy (_I_ don't think you are!)  Rather, think of Mapper A stopping after s/he thinks "does not know."  That doesn't seem so hard.  What more knowledgable people in the future do here is correctly the blank slate, waiting for correct (or at least "solid-B") data that it is right now.  Let's be smart with errors, not 'missing' data.