[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sat Oct 3 14:23:43 BST 2009

2009/10/3 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> We have, time and time again, debated tagging rules. Some people,
> including you, tirelessly (well, more or less) campaigned for stricter
> rules, with a tight voting system and all. Others, including me, were of
> the laissez-faire disposition.

> I think that if some people devised a set of tagging rules or
> recommendations and laid it out in a structured way, including rules on
> how to create, discuss, amend the definitions, there would really be
> demand for that inside OSM.

don't we already have the wiki with defined voting rules, categories
(approved, rejected, proposed, ...) and all the like, "official
features" (Mapfeatures)? Isn't that already a system to note down
meanings of tags?

> Many people would use that set of
> recommendations and participate in its development.

It's less people than you'd expect (always the same in the wiki, few
in votings, recently on highway-importance there were ~128 votes
casted, still a relative small number but almost factor 10 compared to
the average vote).

> It is well possible that after a few years of operation, such a
> committee-backed set of tagging rules would be so successful that
> anything else is virtually insignificant. (I would perhaps use these
> rules myself if I found they made sense.)

that's more or less the current situation: we have a set of rules
(wiki) developped in the past 5 years and people more or less agree
with it and use it. Based on this we produce data that contains some
errors and inconsistencies but is generally working for routing as for
printed maps.

> All this is possible *within* the existing OSM framework and without any
> strong leader telling us where to go.

I'd say this is not only possible but already happening.


More information about the talk mailing list