[OSM-talk] Instead of voting

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Sun Oct 11 17:40:27 BST 2009

2009/10/11 Richard Bullock <rb357 at cantab.net>:
>> 2) Use existing keys if you can.  When you use a key, check to see if
>> there's an existing value that matches what you are mapping.  To go
>> looking, put your key into the following URL where it says "shop":
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:shop
>> 3) Use existing tags if you can.  When you use a tag (key=value),
>> check to see if an existing tag is already documented.  Don't use it
>> in a different way if it's already documented.  To go looking, change
>> this URL where it says "shop=car":
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=car
>> 5) If you disagree with the definition of the key or value, then
>> create a new key or value with a different name, use it in your
>> editing, document it in the wiki, AND (this is important) edit the
>> page for the tag you disagree with so that it mentions your tag as an
>> alternative so that people understand that there is disagreement.
>> Link to tagwatch / osmdoc / tagstat so that people can find out which
>> is more often used in practice.
> I'm not sure 2 + 3 sit well with 5 here;
> Use existing tags, unless you don't like them, in which case create your own
> way to tag things. I think we should be encouraging use of the well
> established tags for the current purpose. (Which we already do in many
> cases - very few people in my country use the main highway=* tags for
> anything different).
> We could end up with many alternatives on the wiki for
> particularly well used tags - that will be very confusing for newbies (and
> others alike)

> I would probably have something saying;
> "Tags or keys already in well established use should not be changed unless
> there are very compelling reasons. Aesthetic reasons are generally unlikely
> to be considered compelling for this purpose. The proposal to change
> existing well-established tags should be discussed on the tagging mailing
> list. The level of consensus needed to be reached for changing these tags
> should be much higher than for proposing new tags.

there should be a possibility/procedure to adjust/add specifics to a
tag-definition in use other than just do it without previous
discussion in the comunity. This is happening everyday in the wiki,
without any control, and in the end sometimes the definition doesn't
fit with the original one, thus contradicting objects tagged like this
before the definition was changed.

In the 5 points (that I generally like), there should be some point to
reflect this and provide an adequate way of structuring this process.

> New tags can be used without voting, however it may be worth discussing
> possibilites with others on the tagging mailing list first."



More information about the talk mailing list