Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/12 James Livingston doc...@mac.com: If there is a wiki page which describes a tag in a limited way, and I want to document how I've used it, what should I be doing? IMHO you should either try to find out that your definition of the tag is the one the majority of mappers supports (and uses), or you should invent another tag. * edit the main page, which could annoy the people who created the page +1, you shouldn't do this without discussing it first if you are changing the actual meaning of a tag, or better: you should invent another tag to describe what you want to express. * add a note to the discussion page, which someone searching the wiki for how to tag things won't read +1 * create a new page describing my version, which leads to conflicting information no, this is IMHO counterproductive, as different pages with different content/definition for the same tag will 100% lead to chaos. IMHO you should generally invent a new tag if possible. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On 11/10/2009, at 12:08 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: This proposal includes the deletion of all voting-related stuff including the casted votes of the past. I'd say that this helps prove the point that different people reading different things into what pages on the wiki say. The proposal wasn't really serious, but I didn't intend it to mean that we would delete all voting-related content from the wiki, only ban new votes. the thing is that not everybody will write a documentation for every key he uses, and in the end (we're already in some tags at this stage), there will be many same tags with different intended meanings. By deleting the voting-process things will get worse. I'm not entirely sure how not having the voting process will make things worse. Instead of having a tag with several different meanings, one of which is approved but may not even be the most common meaning, we'll just have a tag with several different meanings. The voting process doesn't mean that the approved version is what people actually use. If there is a wiki page which describes a tag in a limited way, and I want to document how I've used it, what should I be doing? * edit the main page, which could annoy the people who created the page * add a note to the discussion page, which someone searching the wiki for how to tag things won't read * create a new page describing my version, which leads to conflicting information ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Pieren wrote: And, btw, I think that discussions about tagging is central enough in OSM project that it should stay in the main talk list. You're entitled to that view. Similarly, I think that discussions about licences are central enough to OSM that they should be given the maximum exposure. Someone else probably thinks the same about JOSM's UI. Or the default Mapnik rendering. Or whatever. But others may not agree. Personally I'm glad that house numbers are being debated right now on tagging@ rather than talk@, not least because I've never tagged a house number in my life and don't intend to ever do so. Personally I'm glad that JOSM's UI is being debated on josm-dev@ because I don't use JOSM. And so on. OSM is a thousand things to a thousand people. What's central to you might not be central to others. Different lists give that flexibility. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/11 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: Pieren wrote: And, btw, I think that discussions about tagging is central enough in OSM project that it should stay in the main talk list. You're entitled to that view. Similarly, I think that discussions about licences are central enough to OSM that they should be given the maximum exposure. Someone else probably thinks the same about JOSM's UI. Or the default Mapnik rendering. Or whatever. But others may not agree. Personally I'm glad that house numbers are being debated right now on tagging@ rather than talk@, not least because I've never tagged a house number in my life and don't intend to ever do so. Personally I'm glad that JOSM's UI is being debated on josm-dev@ because I don't use JOSM. And so on. OSM is a thousand things to a thousand people. What's central to you might not be central to others. Different lists give that flexibility. What exactly, in your opinion, should the talk list be used for exactly, now that everything has been branched off to it's own list? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
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. New tags can be used without voting, however it may be worth discussing possibilites with others on the tagging mailing list first. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/11 Richard Bullock rb...@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. New tags can be used without voting, however it may be worth discussing possibilites with others on the tagging mailing list first. Well, I think there is wrong reasoning about using existing tags or creating new ones. I think tag standardizing efforts should be driven where it matters most - for all kind of traffic for example. I don't really care how shop tagging goes on, it can be really tag first, standartize after. However roads, railroads, etc. should have some common ground to work on, because those data matters first. POIs are very useful, but they are still POI. Just my humble opinion,. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
John Smith wrote: What exactly, in your opinion, should the talk list be used for exactly, now that everything has been branched off to it's own list? From a quick scan through the last couple of months, perhaps stuff like: feeds, Software Freedom Day, GPS in planes, 35 servers from Wikimedia Foundation, persistence of ids, mugs, a campaign about Google imagery, the Economist, Monopoly, the evolution of a map through time, a countryside mapping tool, cartography, relations vs superways, what to map first, OpenStreetView, getting field data, Poland, our own satellite, translations, definitive maps, iPhones, coastline quality, the amount of water on the planet, adjoining geometries, EGNOS, funny posters, what blocks mean, maps for the blind, WMS, national boundaries, the site title bar, national websites, expanding the API, Bing, spam, Panogate, automatic simplification, GPS accuracy, search engines indexing OSM, Local Chapters update, RC helicopters, multipolygon rendering, meeting minutes, video surveying, historic mapping, duplicate ways, and Twitter. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Richard Fairhurst schrieb: Personally I'm glad that JOSM's UI is being debated on josm-dev@ because I don't use JOSM. You should try it. It's quite a good editor. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/11 Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net: John Smith wrote: What exactly, in your opinion, should the talk list be used for exactly, now that everything has been branched off to it's own list? From a quick scan through the last couple of months, perhaps stuff like: feeds, Software Freedom Day, GPS in planes, 35 servers from Wikimedia Foundation, persistence of ids, mugs, a campaign about Google imagery, the Economist, Monopoly, the evolution of a map through time, a countryside mapping tool, cartography, relations vs superways, what to map first, OpenStreetView, getting field data, Poland, our own satellite, translations, definitive maps, iPhones, coastline quality, the amount of water on the planet, adjoining geometries, EGNOS, funny posters, what blocks mean, maps for the blind, WMS, national boundaries, the site title bar, national websites, expanding the API, Bing, spam, Panogate, automatic simplification, GPS accuracy, search engines indexing OSM, Local Chapters update, RC helicopters, multipolygon rendering, meeting minutes, video surveying, historic mapping, duplicate ways, and Twitter. LC's have their own mailing list... as for the rest, some of it seems like tagging, some of it is non-mapping about imagery which judging by your standards should be on it's own mailing list etc etc etc ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Hi, What exactly, in your opinion, should the talk list be used for exactly, now that everything has been branched off to it's own list? From a quick scan through the last couple of months, perhaps stuff like: feeds, Software Freedom Day, GPS in planes, 35 servers from Wikimedia Foundation, persistence of ids, mugs, a campaign about Google imagery, the Economist, Monopoly, the evolution of a map through time, a countryside mapping tool, cartography, relations vs superways, what to map first, OpenStreetView, getting field data, Poland, our own satellite, translations, definitive maps, iPhones, coastline quality, the amount of water on the planet, adjoining geometries, EGNOS, funny posters, what blocks mean, maps for the blind, WMS, national boundaries, the site title bar, national websites, expanding the API, Bing, spam, Panogate, automatic simplification, GPS accuracy, search engines indexing OSM, Local Chapters update, RC helicopters, multipolygon rendering, meeting minutes, video surveying, historic mapping, duplicate ways, and Twitter. In short everything that is interesting to the general OSM community but not long-winded enough to warrant a separate list. Is that so hard to grasp, John? Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Patrick Kilian wrote: Hi, In short everything that is interesting to the general OSM community but not long-winded enough to warrant a separate list. Is that so hard to grasp, John? Your basing your argument on hindsight. Which is very easy to do. Any of the topics /could /have developed into long winded (but /useful/) conversations. The critics would have only complained /after /it had increased to an unacceptable size (for them) claim it shouldn't be posted here. It's the size that's their problem not the content. I've no idea why. Just ignore the ones that are too long for you too handle. There's a problem of OSM forums becoming to disparate if it is split into too many sub-forums. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/11 Richard Bullock rb...@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. +1 cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/11 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: Stephen Hope writes: However, I have seen proposals which have improved considerably after a little bit of feedback during the voting process. We now have a tagging mailing list for that. Of course, and it's a good place to talk about these things, no question. So why don't you mention it? This sounds like an advice for beginners list. You need to cover what to do if they still have any questions or doubts after reading the list you've made. And beginners, by definition, are less likely to know how to ask for help. Mentioning the tagging list, and any other options for getting some quick feedback, can only help them out. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 03:51:49PM +0100, David Earl wrote: Don't lawyers say hard cases make bad law? It's more law that clearly covers hard cases make me redundant ;-) -- Sybren Stüvel http://stuvel.eu/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/sybrenstuvel signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/9 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: Doctau created the following page, and various other people have contributed to it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid This proposal includes the deletion of all voting-related stuff including the casted votes of the past. I personally consider this harmful, as it deletes part of our project history: it is important to see, why people voted against a specific proposal, or why they voted in favour. These comments often are aside the votes. Then there lies a certain information in the amount of people who voted for or against a proposal, and how many of them voted for which. For these reasons I'd suggest regardless the outcome of the voting upon this proposal to at least not delete the old votes where voting is already completed. 1) Just map. +1 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 as tags and subtags get more specific, it is important which tag is meant to mean what. Without a definition this will not be possible, not even in the UK but definitely not in the whole world with most people not being English natives. 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 the thing is that not everybody will write a documentation for every key he uses, and in the end (we're already in some tags at this stage), there will be many same tags with different intended meanings. By deleting the voting-process things will get worse. 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. s. above 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) put a link to it in the definition that you disagree with. this would mean that footway/cycleway/path was just the beginning ;-) 6) The risk of this system is that people will not find tags that have the meaning they're looking for. They'll then create a new tag which has an identical or similar meaning to an existing one. +1 If you find a pair of these tags which have similar meanings, you should edit the wiki pages for them, and include pointers to each other. but won't this edit mean to change the definition for all already present tags in the db? Or do you simply mean to add crossreference? IMHO for this a parallel system would be better (one that can be read out automatically from rendering/routing/converting- tools) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Note: this is a single reply to everyone who offered suggestions. If anyone has any more suggestions, please make them, otherwise I'll put this into the wiki and modify the voting documentation to say As an alternative to voting, consider doing this instead. My hope is that people will simply stop offering proposed features, and simply map and document how they mapped. Not trying to force anybody not to vote! First, the new and improved steps: 1) Just map. 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 4) Never invent a tag which you don't have a concrete use for. But if you're using a tag, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. Define your tag so that it is verifiable. 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. Matt Amos writes: 1) tags don't need to be voted on in order to be used. 2) tags shouldn't need to be voted on in order to be documented. 3) the inclusion (or not) of a tag on map features may well be something that it is worth voting on. +1 Martin Koppenhoefer writes: This proposal includes the deletion of all voting-related stuff including the casted votes of the past. +1, because it's part of the documentation for how people have currently mapped. 3) Use existing tags if you can. the thing is that not everybody will write a documentation for every key he uses, and in the end (we're already in some tags at this stage), there will be many same tags with different intended meanings. I agree with this. By deleting the voting-process things will get worse. This doesn't follow. People haven't documented tags therefore voting will create the documentation? 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) put a link to it in the definition that you disagree with. this would mean that footway/cycleway/path was just the beginning ;-) Except that they mean different things. It might help if highway=cycleway and highway=footway said consider using highway=path if use is not restricted to cyclists or walkers. (don't bother looking -- I just this moment added that text). 6) The risk of this system is that people will not find tags that have the meaning they're looking for. They'll then create a new tag which has an identical or similar meaning to an existing one. +1 But the voting procedure doesn't stop anybody from doing this, because you don't have to vote before using a tag or documenting it. If you find a pair of these tags which have similar meanings, you should edit the wiki pages for them, and include pointers to each other. but won't this edit mean to change the definition for all already present tags in the db? Or do you simply mean to add crossreference? Yes, cross-reference. Stephen Hope writes: However, I have seen proposals which have improved considerably after a little bit of feedback during the voting process. We now have a tagging mailing list for that. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Generally, I like your idea - it's important that there is only one meaning per tag (that's why they should be documented), whereas synonymous tags are not a serious problem, so there is no reason to restrict mappers ability to use and define new tags. I therefore think it should be considered a valid way of establishing tags. Russ Nelson: As an alternative to voting, consider doing this instead. It should be clear that it's only an alternative to voting when introducing new tags. It doesn't offer a solution if there already are different ideas about what a certain tag means - we'd still need a way to handle those situations: voting, councils, dictators, whatever. 5) If you disagree with the definition of the key or value, then create a new key or value with a different name, This can potentially lead to some conflicts when the good names are already taken... Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Russ Nelson: Tobias Knerr writes: Frederik Ramm: (5) Never ever invent a tag that you don't have a concrete use for. Never plan ahead, always wait until there are thousands of existing tags that make creating a better solution harder? I believe this to be a misconception. If there are five tags, all of which have the same semantics, what harm is caused? There are minor disadvantages (additional effort for people creating rules, mappers can't decide as easily how they should tag something, ...) that aren't really serious problems, but aren't desirable either. If I can realistically expect a situation to exist and can take it into account without negatively affecting the usability of a tagging scheme, I will do so - even if there is no example for the situation in my area. Of course, I simply invented something to express this, And did you document it in the wiki? I'm going to do this soon. So far, I've made an attempt to discuss it on the wiki talk page for the feature (I could have used the tagging mailing list or some other place, doesn't really matter). After all, someone else might offer a better idea right away. I've noticed that your steps don't take communication into account at all. Generally, though, it's a good idea to discuss tagging bit. I can still ignore other people's opinions, but often I will like their ideas better than the one I originally had. A simple has someone already tagged X? also makes it less likely that people simply don't *find* an existing solution they would be perfectly happy with. Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Pieren wrote: What I don't like in your steps is that you never suggest anything about communication between contributors. Russ Nelson wrote: We now have a tagging mailing list for that. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Instead-of-voting-tp25815241p25838415.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 12:24 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: What I don't like in your steps is that you never suggest anything about communication between contributors. Russ Nelson wrote: We now have a tagging mailing list for that. Ok : change What I don't like in your + 5 + steps is that you never suggest anything... And, btw, I think that discussions about tagging is central enough in OSM project that it should stay in the main talk list. cheers Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Pieren wrote: And, btw, I think that discussions about tagging is central enough in OSM project that it should stay in the main talk list. +1 I'm still bemused why some are adverse to there being posts in a forum titled Talk described as OpenStreetMap user discussion. Cheers Dave F. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Russ Nelson wrote: I considered doing so, but this issue is larger than tagging. Do you have anything to contribute other than stop energy to my suggestion? Apollinaris Schoell writes: can you move this thread to the new list where it belongs? I agree with Russ here. We still have not come to any consensus on the general points of mapping and who is in charge so a dictate from above TELLING us to move to a new list seems somewhat out of place? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/9 Lester Caine les...@lsces.co.uk: Russ Nelson wrote: I considered doing so, but this issue is larger than tagging. Do you have anything to contribute other than stop energy to my suggestion? Apollinaris Schoell writes: can you move this thread to the new list where it belongs? I agree with Russ here. We still have not come to any consensus on the general points of mapping and who is in charge so a dictate from above TELLING us to move to a new list seems somewhat out of place? I'm confused what the talk list is for, since we're not supposed to talk about much on the talk list... However I agree this is probably a better discussion for the tagging list, since this thread is mostly about tagging, even if it's not about specific tags. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/9 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: The benefit is that people spend more time mapping and less time coordinating with each other on things that don't need to be coordinated in advance. And the disadvantage is that by saving a little time on the lack of coordinating at the start, we then end up spending a huge amount of time arguing over whether we should be using yes, true or 1 later ;) Seriously, though, you have a point. Most of the voting is simply a process, with no real benefit. However, I have seen proposals which have improved considerably after a little bit of feedback during the voting process. I think the discussion can be valuable, even if the voting itself isn't. It's not required for every new tag value, but I think we need an extra step in there somewhere that talks about what to do if you want some feedback on a new idea, or just need help finding the right English word for a tag value. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Doctau created the following page, and various other people have contributed to it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid I don't think voting is stupid, but I do believe that voting is not productive. Here's what I believe we should do instead of voting on features: 1) Just map. 2) Use existing keys if you can. 3) Use existing tags if you can. 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. this is awesome advice. if i could add to (4) that any new tag ought to be verifiable (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability), as this helps avoid confusion and edit wars in the long-run. there seem to be several different aspects to tagging that the current tag voting procedure seems to conflate; use, documentation and map features. separating these out, i think: 1) tags don't need to be voted on in order to be used. this is just common sense - there's nothing in the editors to prevent free-form tagging and i'm sure we don't want to stop people free-form tagging. that's part of what makes OSM genius and unique. 2) tags shouldn't need to be voted on in order to be documented. i don't see why we would ever want to prevent anyone documenting anything. documentation is good, right? especially if it comes with pictures. 3) the inclusion (or not) of a tag on map features may well be something that it is worth voting on. it could be done on a purely mechanical basis by counting the tag usage in the database, but this is somewhat lacking in reason and flexibility. harry wood suggested some useful ideas in his SotM talk http://www.harrywood.co.uk/blog/2009/10/04/community-smoothness/ . certainly, though, we should assume that not all tags make it onto map features, not even most of them, but a small set of the most commonly used / most important (fsvo important). 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) put a link to it in the definition that you disagree with. from our useful chat the other day on IRC maybe we can put a set of guidelines out there to help people resolve these competing tagging schemes. in general, prefer the tagging scheme which: 1) preserves more information 2) is verifiable, or more easily verifiable 3) has been recommended by respected members of the community for (3) we're back to harry's talk about how do we, as a community, recognise those respected members? 6) The risk of this system is that people will not find tags that have the meaning they're looking for. They'll then create a new tag which has an identical or similar meaning to an existing one. If you find a pair of these tags which have similar meanings, you should edit the wiki pages for them, and include pointers to each other. and possibly a link to tagwatch/osmdoc/tagstat so that people can find out which is more often used in practice. The benefit is that people spend more time mapping and less time coordinating with each other on things that don't need to be coordinated in advance. +1. cheers, matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Hi, Matt Amos wrote: 1) Just map. 2) Use existing keys if you can. 3) Use existing tags if you can. 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. this is awesome advice. If there's one thing I could add, even though it is kind of implied by the above: (5) Never ever invent a tag that you don't have a concrete use for. We already have too many computer people who get carried away by thought experiements (yes but if the spot where the road and railway intersect also happens to be a station and have a traffic light and a river flowing underneath, what are you going to do THEN). Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/9 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Hi, Matt Amos wrote: 1) Just map. 2) Use existing keys if you can. 3) Use existing tags if you can. 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. this is awesome advice. If there's one thing I could add, even though it is kind of implied by the above: (5) Never ever invent a tag that you don't have a concrete use for. We already have too many computer people who get carried away by thought experiements (yes but if the spot where the road and railway intersect also happens to be a station and have a traffic light and a river flowing underneath, what are you going to do THEN). Welcome to the real world where that actually happens. (Or something very close) Peter ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Hi, Peter Childs wrote: We already have too many computer people who get carried away by thought experiements (yes but if the spot where the road and railway intersect also happens to be a station and have a traffic light and a river flowing underneath, what are you going to do THEN). Welcome to the real world where that actually happens. [x] send OSM id Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Frederik Ramm: (5) Never ever invent a tag that you don't have a concrete use for. Never plan ahead, always wait until there are thousands of existing tags that make creating a better solution harder? Recently, I encountered a crossing where there were both traffic lights and an island for pedestrians. This could easily be expressed if whoever invented the tag had done some thought experiment along the lines of but if there is a crossing that has BOTH traffic lights AND islands? Seems like I shouldn't put these into the same tag! Of course, I simply invented something to express this, but it means that there are two ways of expressing there's a pedestrian island at this crossing - while not much of a problem, that certainly isn't nice from a modelling point of view. We already have too many computer people who get carried away by thought experiements (yes but if the spot where the road and railway intersect also happens to be a station and have a traffic light and a river flowing underneath, what are you going to do THEN). Maybe we should use common sense to distinguish between plausible possibilities and irrelevant hypothetical constructs? Tobias Knerr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On 09/10/2009 15:45, Tobias Knerr wrote: We already have too many computer people who get carried away by thought experiements (yes but if the spot where the road and railway intersect also happens to be a station and have a traffic light and a river flowing underneath, what are you going to do THEN). Maybe we should use common sense to distinguish between plausible possibilities and irrelevant hypothetical constructs? Don't lawyers say hard cases make bad law? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
On 8 Oct 2009, at 22:45 , Russ Nelson wrote: I considered doing so, but this issue is larger than tagging. Do you have anything to contribute other than stop energy to my suggestion? you want to move a bit away from the anarchy but don't agree this discussion should be in the list where it belongs? how do you expect anything will change? for the topic itself there isn't much to add. It is well written and for my impression a majority of mappers is doing exactly this already for a long time. The documentation part could need a rework. So if you have energy left put all this on the wiki into the best practices pages, crosslink wherever it makes sense ... discussing on talk is useless as the last months have shown. many complaints about the current status but no action. Only once for the highway thread someone stood up, changed the wiki and got it voted. Sure voting isn't a good solution but it's the best we have for new tags. old tags speak for themselves in tagwatch. Having good docu in the wiki helps everyone and beginners will always start from there. Apollinaris Schoell writes: can you move this thread to the new list where it belongs? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Lester Caine wrote: We still have not come to any consensus on the general points of mapping and who is in charge so a dictate from above TELLING us to move to a new list seems somewhat out of place? I guess it's a matter of perception. You see a dictate from above TELLING you to do something. I see a fellow osm'er trying to help the community that has been a wee bit fraught of late. It seems like normal mailing list etiquette to me. If one area or sub-topic, albeit a very important one, is dominating the list and is prone long drawn out discussions then it seems sensible to move it to its own list so those who want to take part can and those who don't want to don't get mailbox-ache. It seems to work reasonably well for the legal mailing list, why not tagging? rcr ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Lester Caine wrote: We still have not come to any consensus on the general points of mapping and who is in charge so a dictate from above TELLING us to move to a new list seems somewhat out of place? I guess it's a matter of perception. You see a dictate from above TELLING you to do something. I see a fellow osm'er trying to help the community that has been a wee bit fraught of late. It actually is another facet of the problem of *governance*. I haven't checked whether the same people who want to make alterations to the talk list are the same set / an intersecting set / not the same set as those who advocate totally freeform tagging. Checking that won't change - the basic problem is governance. I'm sure that in three months a lot of tagging discussions will have migrated from this list to the newer list. If we then make a governance list, there will be nothing left for this list to talk about at all ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Russ Nelson wrote: 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) put a link to it in the definition that you disagree with. Tonight I was pointed to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Tag:highway%3Dpath http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/DE:Germany_roads_tagging#kombinierte_Rad-.2FFu.C3.9Fwege (sorry it's german, but don't have an other example atm. Seems $somebody has said at the wiki that mapping cycleways with highway=path and foot=designated bicycle=yes is a good idea, because highway=footway and highway=cycleway won't work that for since they are used for other things a lot. Awful! So now one (I guess its me) has to put things back to the tags which should be used the things for they were invented and not for the things users use them as works for me. So far this quick shot. Regards malenki ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Tobias Knerr writes: Frederik Ramm: (5) Never ever invent a tag that you don't have a concrete use for. Never plan ahead, always wait until there are thousands of existing tags that make creating a better solution harder? I believe this to be a misconception. If there are five tags, all of which have the same semantics, what harm is caused? Perhaps there are five ways to label this meaning. For ease of editing, people should use the tag they remember. In time, people will discover that the semantics are identical (probably users of the map data), and will edit the wiki documentation for each tag, pointing to the other tags. They'll tell $STEVEC and he'll check to see if one use is dominating (e.g. yes), and if so, ask that people not use the uncommon tags (e.g. true and 0). Of course, I simply invented something to express this, And did you document it in the wiki? If not, then how is anybody else to discern your meaning? By reverse-engineering the tags into your meaning? But they weren't at your traffic island and don't know exactly what you're trying to model. Chances are good that they'll think of something else whose attributes match your tags. So they'll be modelling one thing and you'll be modelling something else using the same tags. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Instead of voting
Doctau created the following page, and various other people have contributed to it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid I don't think voting is stupid, but I do believe that voting is not productive. Here's what I believe we should do instead of voting on features: 1) Just map. 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 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. 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) put a link to it in the definition that you disagree with. 6) The risk of this system is that people will not find tags that have the meaning they're looking for. They'll then create a new tag which has an identical or similar meaning to an existing one. If you find a pair of these tags which have similar meanings, you should edit the wiki pages for them, and include pointers to each other. The benefit is that people spend more time mapping and less time coordinating with each other on things that don't need to be coordinated in advance. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
2009/10/9 Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com: The benefit is that people spend more time mapping and less time coordinating with each other on things that don't need to be coordinated in advance. I disagree, there are contentious tags I just won't bother doing anything with, simply because it seems like it would be a waste of my time at present, I really would love nothing better than a determination by a group that is set up to evaluate such tags and give not just an opinion but a considered opinion that tagging things in a certain way is a best practise of sorts. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
can you move this thread to the new list where it belongs? Hi all, I'm pleased to announce a new mailing list: tagg...@openstreetmap.org . You can subscribe at: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging The mailing list description is tag discussion, strategy and related tools. The list will enable those who want to discuss tags to do so at any length they like, especially those who might not subscribe to talk@ because of its general high volume but would like to be involved in tagging discussions. Equally, it will help those who are less interested, and only use a subset of tags in their mapping work, avoid the discussions. Enjoy. :) cheers Richard On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Russ Nelson nel...@crynwr.com wrote: Doctau created the following page, and various other people have contributed to it. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/VotingOnTheWikiIsStupid I don't think voting is stupid, but I do believe that voting is not productive. Here's what I believe we should do instead of voting on features: 1) Just map. 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 4) If you used a tag that isn't in the wiki, document your use of the tag, so that other people won't use your tag to mean something else. 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) put a link to it in the definition that you disagree with. 6) The risk of this system is that people will not find tags that have the meaning they're looking for. They'll then create a new tag which has an identical or similar meaning to an existing one. If you find a pair of these tags which have similar meanings, you should edit the wiki pages for them, and include pointers to each other. The benefit is that people spend more time mapping and less time coordinating with each other on things that don't need to be coordinated in advance. -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Instead of voting
I considered doing so, but this issue is larger than tagging. Do you have anything to contribute other than stop energy to my suggestion? Apollinaris Schoell writes: can you move this thread to the new list where it belongs? -- --my blog is athttp://blog.russnelson.com Crynwr supports open source software 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241 Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | Sheepdog ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
