[Tagging] Rules

Wed Feb 9 02:49:26 UTC 2022

Hi Andy, 

I honestly appreciate how finally somebody is trying to add elements for
a serious and constructive debate and I'll do my best to write in the
same line. First of all I agree on the general point being important
instead of specific tagging schemes. At the beginning you mention the
OSMF and how, at least for the time being, we can't expect any
arbitration. And yes, maybe, if this debate remains unresolved we should
consider requesting the OSMF to be more "hands on". 

You cited the OSMF mission statement and the general absence of tagging
policies. I know that their following core value, ranking as nº 1 on the
list, cannot be considered a tagging policy but should make us reflect
about its meaning: "We want to make the best map data set of the world".
I don't interpret here we can't make an effort to achieve a cleaner and
more consistent database... 

 	* How people map things and which tags they use is handled by a
general community consensus and a bit of common sense on all sides.

-> Let me be very clear that in this statement lies the crux of
everything, which is why I think THIS is what we need to clarify.
Particularly because it is being repeated so many times as a mantra.
Yes, tagging is handled . But not by "general community consensus".
Don't get me wrong. In those cases where nobody challenges the status
quo it is easy to talk about community consensus and of course we have
this kind of tagging schemes. It is easy to be friends as long as there
are no frictions. But what happens if somebody (or a considerable group
of people) DOES challenge the status quo, be that a new tagging scheme,
an improvement of a tagging scheme or a deprecation? Then I would expect
there is a way to settle the topic. Instead, not even do we NOT have an
established process for settling anything in a transparent and
verifiable manner - we haven't even defined what we mean by "general
community consensus". My personal constructive proposal: It should have
to do with voting and making the outcome count. 

Directly connected with the above: Some people express their concern
when arguments for a more prescriptive approach are being brought up.
These people fear that the individual "freedom" to map would be at stake
as soon as control freaks will impose their will. But the dilemma is not
FREEDOM VS CONTROL but WHO CONTROLS and HOW this control is exercised.
To name a few, at this moment there are a number of gatekeepers who
exercise a rather fuzzy type of control by 1. either imposing their
opinion with mantras on mailing lists, by 2. deciding how tags are
implemented in editors, by 3. writing the wiki or by 4. deciding which
things are displayed on the default map of the official OSM webpage. As
I said, this is not done in dictatorship style, the causes and effects
are fuzzy but the effect is the same nonetheless. It is the vicious
circle of many mappers actually believing the Wiki to be prescriptive
(which leads not only especially newbies to use it as a bible), many
mappers believing that editors are using only formally approved,
"official" tags (fueled by the fact that we apparently have a process
for proposals and votings), many mappers adapting their edits to what is
visible on our official website and many mappers on mailing lists, who
haven't been around long enough to grasp the dynamics of this project,
bowing their heads to apparently established dogmas shouted by certain
OSM old-timers. Does this sound like community consensus? Not to me. 

 	* You say that 33 people voted in favour of this "deprecation" (and
there are around 660 people who will see this message directly via this
mailing list), but those are tiny "even less than a rounding error"
numbers compared to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats#Contributor_statistics_reports
.

-> According to this logic there is virtually no way of deciding
anything because we will never achieve a quorum among the total number
of active mappers worldwide. My constructive proposal: Let's create a
space which is easy to join and where we can decide things in a
transparent and verifiable way, promote it among ALL mappers so
hopefully everybody who cares enough can have a say if he wishes. For
those who can't join lets find better ways to make it possible. For
those who don't want to join the same principle as in all democracies
applies: Silence is consent. 

 	* What you appear to be wanting is a way of not only telling lots of
other people that they're "doing it wrong" but actively enforcing your
views over them

This is happening already. We have the DWG who enforces bans if they
consider somebody is consistently "doing it wrong" against what they
consider "community consensus". My personal constructive proposal: Why
do you insinuate there is only one monolithic and worldwide unique way
of establishing tagging rules? I don't see any reason against variations
on all kinds of levels (from national to local). And, yes, if we achieve
a broad, transparent and verifiable "general community consensus" this
should trickle down to the others spheres, e.g. tagging presets in
editors, the wiki or carto. How and to which degree? Depends. Community
Consensus. 

 	* If you want to change one of the core principles of OSM (consensus
rather top-down imposed tagging) you're going to need to make some
really good arguments to persuade people.  So far you've tried this (at
least) on Telegram and tried this here, but have received significant
pushback in both places.

-> Again the consensus thing. Without being able to define the magic
word the argument appears sterile. Once we agree on what it is we can
continue this point. If what people want is tagging based on consensus
let's define it and make it the reference. I am all for it. You say I
received significant pushback and although you are right it is also true
there have been many people in favor. Why not settle this with a voting?
I have no interest in imposing my personal opinion. 

 	* Any changes now need to consider the "installed base" of data,
mappers, data consumers etc.  Many or most of these people are
volunteers. As a data consumer, exactly why should I spend my own free
time playing catch up with the latest wiki vote until a new way of
tagging is broadly supported by OSM mappers?

-> I fully agree we need to involve all the actors. Only that if we had
a consistent process according to which the community reaches a
consensus that matters on all levels it would make their life easier
because if the wiki is consistent with editors it will automatically
become broadly used. 

Bottomline (my constructive approach): Let's find a process for the
community to reach a consensus accepted by everyone because if the
community doesn't - somebody else will make the deciding for us. 

Marcos 

Am 03.02.2022 14:09, schrieb Andy Townsend:

> On 03/02/2022 11:22, mail at marcos-martinez.net wrote: 
> 
>> Where does it say people can't vote for a deprecation and that their vote is useless and without consequence? There have been 33 people who are in favor. I see you and Simon are opposing. Are you both the representatives of the community above others? If not and you are referring to some noble and basic OSM rule that needs to be followed, I kindly request you to direct me to a place where the rule is stated and who approved it/on which consensus it was elaborated?
> 
> Firstly, it's perhaps worth mentioning that its silly having an argument over amenity=embassy because there's only one of those left https://overpass-turbo.eu/s/1fKw , and that appears to be mistagged. 
> 
> However, the general point is important, and it's important to separate OSMF from OSM here.  OSMF's mission statement is here: 
> 
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Mission_Statement 
> 
> It has as its first sentence "The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international, not-for-profit, democratic organisation with the tasks of SUPPORTING THE OSM PROJECT, running and protecting the OSM database, and making it available to all. " (my emphasis). 
> 
> The OSMF is an organisation that you can join and has a democratically elected board that you can stand for.  It has a number of appointed working groups who report to the board.  If you believe that the OSMF's approach should be more "hands on" than the current "supporting" role then please stand for the board and make that case. 
> 
> There are a bunch of other policies - https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Policies_and_other_Documents - but you'll notice that there's no "tagging policy" among those. 
> 
> How people map things and which tags they use is handled by a general community consensus and a bit of common sense on all sides.  Over the years an aversion to deprecation has grown up due to the surprises that it can cause for people who work with OSM data - not just editor developers, but data consumers of all stripes.  There are times where deprecation makes sense (e.g. "highway=ford" on ways doesn't let you say what sort of highway it is, beyond being a ford) but many times when it does not.  If a new form of tagging makes sense mappers (guided by the editors that they use) will adopt it and as it appears in the OSM database, data consumers will support it. 
> 
> You say that 33 people voted in favour of this "deprecation" (and there are around 660 people who will see this message directly via this mailing list), but those are tiny "even less than a rounding error" numbers compared to https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Stats#Contributor_statistics_reports . 
> 
> It's important that we discuss how we tag things as a project, and the tagging mailing list and the wiki both form part of that.  What we don't currently have (at API, board or working group level) is a way of enforcing the views of 33 people over the 300k (active contributors last year).  What you appear to be wanting is a way of not only telling lots of other people that they're "doing it wrong" but actively enforcing your views over them.  Historically OSMF members have tended to vote for board members who were in favour of a "supporting" role rather than a "telling people how to map" one - if you read through the candidate manifestos from last and previous years you'll see a number of people suggesting a more "hands on" role for the foundation, but OSMF members have tended not to vote for them. 
> 
> It's perhaps also worth remembering that OSM, with its hands-off "any tags you like" approach has succeeded where other initiatives from around the same time (e.g. Wikimapia) have been less successful.  Elsewhere, Wikipedia succeeded where Nupedia failed; in the world of computing the "Expert Systems" approach (all the rage when I started working on systems doing what would now be called "Machine Learning" at the back end of the 1980s) has similarly been eclipsed.  If you want to change one of the core principles of OSM (consensus rather top-down imposed tagging) you're going to need to make some really good arguments to persuade people.  So far you've tried this (at least) on Telegram and tried this here, but have received significant pushback in both places. 
> 
> It's been said before, but bears repeating, that OpenStreetMap is _not_ a computer science project.  Someone emerging from college will surely look at the OSM tagging that has evolved over the years and suggest how it ought to have been designed back in the 2000s.  However, unless they have access to a time machine they don't have to opportunity to go back and make that change.  Any changes now need to consider the "installed base" of data, mappers, data consumers etc.  Many or most of these people are volunteers. As a data consumer, exactly why should I spend my own free time playing catch up with the latest wiki vote until a new way of tagging is broadly supported by OSM mappers? 
> 
> Best Regards, 
> 
> Andy (a member of the Data Working Group, but written in a personal capacity) 
> 
> PS: I've resisted replying until now, as I suspect that many other people have, because unfortunately https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini's_law applies - it's possible for people to make the same arguments against the status quo again and again in slightly different ways without actually addressing reasons advanced why something might be a bad idea.  To answer _every one_ of these would be a waste of time that could be better spent doing something useful, like mapping.  Some people, unfortunately, seem to be "only here for the argument".  As the saying goes "Never wrestle with a pig. you both get dirty and the pig likes it". 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20220209/b588f43b/attachment-0001.htm>