[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discouraging the use of deprecated schemes

Peter Elderson pelderson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 24 14:14:56 UTC 2021

 I am not a fan of chat-like platforms for serious content discussions. It
tends to blur the issue and has a high risk of conflict instead of
co-operation. Discord goes MS I heard, that's no recommendation.

Openstreetmap forum https://forum.openstreetmap.org/index.php works fine,
keeps subjects together including history and search, and you can stay out
of things you don't want to be involved in.
It has national forums for side discussions by country.  PIctures and links
can be included in the messages. Quoting is easy; there is optional email

A tagging sub-forum is not currently present, but I am sure it can be

Peter Elderson

Op wo 24 mrt. 2021 om 14:11 schreef Seth Deegan <jayandseth at gmail.com>:

> BTW, we really should consider a proper community communication tool such
>> as e.g. Loomio for the whole community. These mailing lists are a real
>> dread and probably one of the reason why there are so few who participate.
> Both the Slack <https://app.slack.com/client/T029HV94T/C01LV023K1V> and
> Discord
> <https://discord.com/channels/413070382636072960/790139356903505951>
> (extremely active) have dedicated #proposals channels...
> The hope is to merge them in the future
> <https://github.com/openstreetmap/operations/issues/380>.
> lectrician1 <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Lectrician1>
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 6:35 AM Sören alias Valor Naram <valinora at gmx.net>
> wrote:
>> We could do a test with Slack because Slack is ideal because it combines
>> thread (like in email threads or so called replies) with a chat like
>> approach. And it works brilliantly and is innovative. If you ask Microsoft
>> and Co, then it is too innovative because they're just copying the features
>> from Slack over to their own platforms to wipe out Slack from the market
>> and not willing to protect Slack from such an action by simply not doing it.
>> ~ Sören Reinecke alias Valor Naram
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Discouraging the use of
>> deprecated schemes
>> From: Martin Koppenhoefer
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> CC:
>> Am Mi., 24. März 2021 um 01:04 Uhr schrieb <mail at marcos-martinez.net>:
>>> Frederik wrote:
>>>    - There will not be one consistent tagging system that works for the
>>>       whole
>>>       planet. I think people will agree on some things and chose to go
>>>       their
>>>       own paths in others, and that's ok.
>>> I disgree and I think many people misunderstand the point. I'd never
>>> impose ONE single tagging scheme as such for the whole world. The world is
>>> indeed too complex. But we can agree to apply different tagging schemes in
>>> different contexts.
>> I agree with Marcos here, a consistent tagging scheme does not mean we
>> will use the same set of tags globally  but that usage of the tags is
>> consistently applied (the same tag is used for the same thing as opposed to
>> using the same tag for different things / with different intended meaning),
>> one actual question is in the detail: how long is a thing to be considered
>> "the same", what are its essential characteristics, or in other words: when
>> do things start to be different and should be tagged differently? We do not
>> need "consistence" in the sense that only one tag is used for the same
>> property (no real problem, or a very minor inconvenience, if we use phone=*
>> and contact:phone in parallel), but we should strive to intend the same
>> meaning when we use the same tags (when we don't, things break apart).
>> While we could have different regional standards ("foo"-tag means bar in
>> Europe and foobaz in Oceania), and it might work (to some extent already
>> done, e.g. typical tags for bicycle details, ...) we should try to limit
>> these cases to a minimum because it makes life harder for everyone, better
>> use different tags all together if different concepts should be expressed.
>> There is a lot of difference (in the detail) due to cultural differences.
>> For example if you see a German petrol station in an urban area, you can
>> probably assume it has a 24/7 shop where you can buy some food (typically
>> including fresh milk), beer/alcohol and tobacco (because the German law
>> says they are exempt from Ladenschlussgesetz and can sell "travel
>> supplies", as everybody knows alcohol makes a perfect travel supply). In
>> Italy, petrol stations in the city almost never have such a shop, they are
>> often completely automatic and you will not find any staff. They will never
>> sell tobacco unless they are also a tobacco shop (only in the countryside).
>>> Which means we need more complex rules - not the absence of rules. If
>>> the Italian community decides they handle address tagging very different
>>> from other countries (for those who don't know: "Housenumbers are usually
>>> assigned to the access points of a property (e.g. a gate on the perimeter",
>>> even if it is hundreds of meters away from the actual building) that is
>>> fine. But this needs to be documented then and regarded as standard.
>> It is documented in this detailed way, but it is also completely
>> consistent with a definition like "add addresses to the object where they
>> apply to". In Germany, addresses are added to building plots (even plots
>> without a building on it), while in Italy, addresses are associated with
>> doors, gates and entrances. Actually if you look at the details from this
>> point of view, it is the Germans that deviate from the definition, because
>> they mostly do not add the addresses to building plots (unless it is a
>> polygon POI) but inherit it to a building on the site. Our tagging is
>> consistent, it's the way addresses are associated in the real world that is
>> different.
>>> It doesn't make sense to have Italians applying this rule in Germany and
>>> Germans tagging in Italy as they are used at home!
>> they're doing it anyway, sigh. One reason are tools. A lot of tools
>> insist you add addresses tags to a building, nudging you to do it. Tools
>> are very powerful in OSM, the hints from bug linters are often not
>> questioned, editor presets are assumed to represent "consensus", with
>> maproulette you can perform distributed mass retagging, etc. This said,
>> some Germans are actually mapping like this (in Germany), adding address
>> information on nodes (often entrances).
>>> So, yes, I vote for giving more "power" to the outcome of votes. During
>>> mailing lists debates and the voting process is where consensus should
>>> happen. Visible, countable, open to everybody. BTW, we really should
>>> consider a proper community communication tool such as e.g. Loomio for the
>>> whole community. These mailing lists are a real dread and probably one of
>>> the reason why there are so few who participate.
>> Email has the advantage that everybody already knows the system, many
>> have a client already setup (or use a web client), it's seemlessly usable
>> on mobile and desktop. Any other tool has a higher barrier of entry, as you
>> would have to learn it.
>> Cheers,
>> Martin
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20210324/2794b691/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list