[Tagging] Deprecating phone=* in favor of more ambiguity in the database

[mail at marcos-martinez.net]

Hi Frederik, 

a few comments: 

And it was the second debate about the topic, and it did not anything
new over the first debate. 

 	* -> Again, I find this answer highly disturbing. What is the
frequency we are allowed to debate the same topic? 2 years? 5 years?
And: Are those who have recently joined OSM and didn't participate in
the debate from two years ago allowed to raise it? Can people who were
there last time but didn't participate last time do it now?

I think the penalty of banning comes from a moderator saying "if you do
this again I will ban you". If such a warning is blatantly and willfully
ignored without consequence, we might as well do away with moderators
altogether. 

 	* -> I consider this warning abusive and should not have happened in
the first place.

As for consensus, taginfo says that "phone" outnumbers "contact:phone"
by 4:1 and the number of people "having last edited" an object with
"phone" outnumbers those having last edited an object with
"contact:phone" by 6:1. 

 	* -> I was talking about establishing community consensus in general.
Which of the two options I prefer is not relevant, I have no intention
to continue this specific debate but I do believe it is absolutely
necessary that we find a way to settle this debate - as well as others.
Needless to say that in this specific case the reference to taginfo is
vicious, knowing that editors clearly favor one of the options. Does ID
and JOSM establish community consensus? Maybe I should learn
programming, might be much more effective for influencing OSM, rather
than debating endlessly...

Saying "if you don't like the topic, ignore it" is cynical; first of
all, once there are too many topics I don't like on the mailing list, I
will dislike the whole mailing list 

 	* -> I can't believe how elitist this sounds. There are many people
inside OSM who are very concerned about attracting more people to get
involved in the community beyond pure mapping. I wished we had more than
just these bunch of two dozens of old friends commenting on this list,
much more - I'd rather have hundreds or thousands of people from all
parts of the world, interested in how to achieve a better database. The
message you are sending is "please stay all away and leave me alone in
my backyard so I can have a barbecue with my friends in peace. If all of
you participate my mailbox would overflow and I really wouldn't like
THAT"

1. OSM doens't have a nice and clean data model as taught in your
computer sciene 1+1 and if you can't wrap your head around this then go
play somewhere else 

 	* -> If one thinks that repeating this with the intention to
discourage people from trying to improve a worldwide, open and
collaborative database the suggestion could go the opposite direction.

I am rather tired of hearing the same old "oh but OSM should have a
CLEAN data structure where everything is nicely put in a NAMESPACE"
discussion again. 

 	* -> I kindly ask you to refer to a place where I can read a basic
statement, some kind of OSM "constitution", some formally approved paper
or text that enlightens us regarding WHAT kind of database this is
supposed to be to begin with. If it turns out there is none (maybe there
is but I am not aware) then this is - well - just your opinion, as good
as any other. Everybody here has things we can be tired about.

2. specifically, the phone tag is totally fine and we don't need
contact:phone to store two million times in our database that by the
way, a phone is some way of contacting someone; 

-> Correction: Did you read the whole thread? It was difficult to miss
Paul's strong opinion that a phone is not always there to establish
contact. Easy way out: If a telephone number is not always there contact
somebody and we want to make this distinction then we need both schemes.
If both refer to exactly the same thing we should make up our minds and
stick to one, you personal favorite is without "contact". Fair enough. 

Marcos 

Am 28.01.2022 20:31, schrieb Frederik Ramm:

> Hi,
> 
> On 1/28/22 19:21, mail at marcos-martinez.net wrote: 
> 
>> The previous debate happened in May 2020, more than 1 year and 8 months ago.
> 
> And it was the second debate about the topic, and it did not anything new over the first debate.
> 
>> If the above is interpreted as established community consensus which is not to be challenged under penalty of banning,
> 
> I think the penalty of banning comes from a moderator saying "if you do this again I will ban you". If such a warning is blatantly and willfully ignored without consequence, we might as well do away with moderators altogether.
> 
> As for consensus, taginfo says that "phone" outnumbers "contact:phone" by 4:1 and the number of people "having last edited" an object with "phone" outnumbers those having last edited an object with "contact:phone" by 6:1.
> 
> I am rather tired of hearing the same old "oh but OSM should have a CLEAN data structure where everything is nicely put in a NAMESPACE" discussion again. Saying "if you don't like the topic, ignore it" is cynical; first of all, once there are too many topics I don't like on the mailing list, I will dislike the whole mailing list; secondly, Sören bringing up the same old topic again forces me to re-iterate the same old arguments against, or else someone will say "hey, see, nobody was against it".
> 
> I am not a list moderator but I am in the Data Working Group and when we say to someone "don't do this again" (even if it should be something that other users can do with impunity) and this person smiles in our faces while he's doing the exact thing again, then of course we block them, and we most certainly don't first start a poll among OSM users whether they think this is just.
> 
> So,
> 
> 1. OSM doens't have a nice and clean data model as taught in your computer sciene 1+1 and if you can't wrap your head around this then go play somewhere else;
> 
> 2. specifically, the phone tag is totally fine and we don't need contact:phone to store two million times in our database that by the way, a phone is some way of contacting someone;
> 
> 3. and Richard was totally right to follow through on his announcement to not tolerate the same discussion for a third time.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20220129/f608e7bb/attachment.htm>