[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

Nigel Magnay nigel.magnay at gmail.com
Fri Oct 2 10:12:43 BST 2009

> Matt Amos wrote:
>> i absolutely agree. i'd also defend frederik's right to say "this is
>> the Frederik Ramm approved tagging scheme" without catching grief, or
>> andy to say it's the One True Gravitystorm way, etc... etc...
> Now we're getting somewhere. This goes back to an idea floated a while
> ago by RichardF, and mentioned by Harry Wood in his talk at SOTM - I
> think it is called "tags I use".
> The idea behind that (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that anyone makes
> their own decisions (just like now) and in cases where people think they
> have a good definition they put this on some kind of special wiki page
> or database or whatever ("tags I use, and how I use them"). Others can
> then choose to follow someone else's definitions, or not, or follow a
> mix, or create their own.

That's fine, so long as the tags themselves are namespaced. Otherwise,
just as now, the semantics get confused.

I.E, It should be the case that if I tag as


then I'm using the definition of 'interesting' *owned* by
FredericRamm. But If I tag


I'm using the definition *owned* by the gravitystorm person or
persons. If I don't agree with the strict definition they're using,
then I must create my own. The owners of the tag have the absolute
right to say 'you have used my tag incorrectly'

This allows that

FredericRamm:interesting != Gravitystorm:interesting=true

However - if at a later date it is decided that really
FredericRamm:interesting === Gravitystorm:interesting=true, then you
could do a number of different things

a) Store an equivalence (as SteveC was saying)
b) Perform a subsumation by renaming all FredericRamm:interesting tags
to Gravitystorm:interesting tags, provided the owners of them were
happy to do so.
c) Perform a subsumation by renaming all {FredericRamm:interesting,
Gravitystorm:interesting} tags into something else - maybe

That way everyone can have their own sandbox, AND groups that want to
standardise can do so, without dictatorship or anarchy.

> I'm ok with that kind of leadership where everyone can choose for
> himself by whom he wants to be led. I'm just not ok with A and B
> choosing a leader and C then has to follow.

My impression is that nobody wants to force anyone to do anything -
But - where you have a 'global' tag namespace, there's substantial
overloading when there's disagreement as to the semantics involved.

More information about the talk mailing list