[OSM-talk] Wiki Proposals: An OSM Echo Chamber?

Andrew Hain andrewhainosm at hotmail.co.uk
Mon Dec 4 09:13:28 UTC 2017

I would suggest that this is part of a wider malaise that the mission of the wiki has become unclear.

From: Roland Olbricht <roland.olbricht at gmx.de>
Sent: 04 December 2017 08:42:46
To: osm-talk
Subject: [OSM-talk] Wiki Proposals: An OSM Echo Chamber?

Hi all,

We recently had an experienced and productive community member, Ilya,
putting a lot of time in a Wiki Proposal just to see the whole process
fail. Given the feedback from the process, this has been due to a whole
bunch of hard-to-control problems
- the whole thing has been too complex
- the wording did cause misunderstandings
- attempt to discuss the matter in an unsuitable medium

If even an experienced member cannot handle the process then we should
reconsider whether the process of Wiki Proposals makes sense at all.

I suggest to replace the Proposal process by three more specialized
and therefore much simpler processes. They are structured by what they
can affect.

In particular, the discussion should go to better suited places than the
infamous Wiki page discussion shadow pages:

Ilya complained that at the wiki discussion page turned into a complete
mess of "56K text". I do agree that the wiki page is a hard-to-read
mess, but yet it has only the content of 10-30 messages.
There had even been expressed deprecation that the discussion spilled
into the voting section because it is so difficult to read.

For comparison: My mail client currently handles more than 100'000
messages and is still fast and comfortable to use. Even in the forum
where users are stuck with what the web interface allows, it is easy to
have discussions with some hundred responses.

This should remind us that the wiki discussion facility is unsuited for
any nontrivial discussion but it disguises as sufficient discussion

Note that on the same time there is a group of 350 community members
who have indicated to be interested in public transport. Ilya stated as
a reson that the corresponding mailing list has "less than 3 messages"
per month. The content equivalence of "3 messages" on a wiki discussion
page already would make the impression of a heated discussion.
Apparently the wiki discussion pages have distracted him from the real

Please note:
It does not make sense to discuss the redesign of one communication
channel in another communication channel. But the wiki does not have a
suitable place to discuss the issue. Hence I cross-post to the forum to
at least reach also a large portion of the less tech-savvy community

I suggest the following three specialized replacements for the Proposal

=== Distinguished Documentation ===

OSM could profit in a lot of cases from a good how-to map for particular
subjects. But at the same time exists poor documentation and people do
not necessary know which to trust. Writing a good documentation will
become more rewarding if we can offer a process to indicate general
acclaim and distinguish excellent documentation.

The voting confirms that the claims of the documentation reflect actual
mapping practice. That way, it makes the effort a distinguished

It des not affect any existing wiki pages.
It does not affect the OSM database.

=== Wiki Cleanup ===

Amongst the real problems of OSM is that our wiki documentation has lots
of poorly maintained pages. There exist even contradictions between
different pages. For an unexperienced users it is difficult to figure
out which wiki pages are really applicable.

We need a decision process which of the contradictive statements can be
discarded. The hurdles should not be too high because we generally do
have too few maintenance of the wiki content. Nonetheless, as this does
give some rulesets a spin in favour of others, it should be subject to a

There should be left a success notice after the cleanup has actually
been done.

The document must state which wiki pages are considered authoriative.
It should state which wiki pages are to be changed.
It can list the used tags, tagging combinations, or data constellations
that are in scope of the document at all.
It should state which used tags, tagging combinations, or data
constellations will after the change newly contradict the wiki.

Affects the wiki.
Does not affect the OSM database.

=== Tag Disambiguation ===

Sometimes different people tag different types of objects with the same
tags. This is a problem because you do no longer know what is really
there. It is the core concern of the old Proposal process.
Given that backwards compatbility is nowadays an important virtue,
the preferred solution is to add an extra tag to distinguish the
different situations.

The voting is to check that the disambiguation is logically sound
and that it covers the vast majority of applicable constellations.

Affects the wiki: the description of the affected tags and tag
combinations are changed.
Affect the OSM database: mappers are adviced to systematically change
tags in the course of local maintenance.

=== Remarks ===

There are other purposes advertised on the pages of the Proposal
process. Most notably an invitation for general discussion.

I do discourage them.
 From all the communication media we have in OSM the wiki is least
suitable for discussions, as explained in the beginning.

Best regards,


talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20171204/621d739c/attachment.html>

More information about the talk mailing list