[OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight

[OJ W]

On tagwatch, one idea for these would have been voting features of the form
"mark this usage as error/typo".  Of course, that could be extended to
voting for "good" tags too..


On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv-gmane at gerv.net>
wrote:

> Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> > 80n and I were just discussing this issue over coffee. We both feel that
> > generating tag lists from planet is a good idea, but to give prominence
> to
> > them (ranking if you like) it would be good to have the number of users
> for
> > a particular tag rather than the actual occurrence of the tag in the
> > database.
>
> But that doesn't take into account the relative occurrences of the
> feature. Perhaps only 10 canal-mad people in the UK will ever use the
> "mooring" tag. Does that make the tag less
> useful/important/official/correct/anything than the highway tag which
> thousands of people use? If 25 people mistakenly use "highwey=primary"
> instead of highway, does that make it more correct than using the
> mooring tag?
>
> The database can tell us what _is_, but _is_ does not imply _ought_. We
> can either decide that OSM has no view on _ought_ (and just have a
> free-for-all), or we can take advantage of the accumulated mapping
> expertise of OSM participants and have a set of best-practice "ought"s.
> This is what we do now with Map_Features, some of which were carefully
> designed after considering several other tagging schemes for that
> feature type which seem good at first glance but turn out to have flaws.
>
> Gerv
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20080320/8f226925/attachment.html>