Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Michael Patrick]

 >>> I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a
>>> brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.
>> Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw?

Yes, boards of experts. Subject matter experts.

Almost every significant theme that could possibly go into OSM has already
has some sort of classification / attribute ( 'tagging' ) schemes suitable
for 'whatever' scale, from the simple to the complex, some of them dating
back over a hundred years.


   - Some, like the *APA Land-Based Classification Standards
    (LBCS)* have been in
   development since before 1965. The LBCS can be used recursively through
   smaller levels of detail, so if you want, it's possible to describe a
   janitorial closet in an federal office rented from a commercial landlord in
   a historical building on land held in trust by a private foundation as part
   of a state university.
   - The* I**nternational Electrotechnical Commission* glossary (
   Electropedia ) has illustrated descriptions of anything attached to a power
   network, some already translated in multiple languages, for example overhead
   line tower structures
   
   - There are *NAICIS* ( SIC ) codes with their European and international
   equivalents, with codings for establishment sizes, and supply chain roles (
   wholesale, retail, etc. ) like our local coffee shop
   .
   - Outdoor display advertising ('signs') has an association with a
   typology of products from sidewalk switchboards to giant building sized LED
   billboards. Every scientific domain also has their hierarchical naming
   schemes for natural features, along wit efforts to reconcile the various
   domains like the *European Union's Inspire
    *effort. ( short
   intro  ).
   - Over the past thirty years or so, a lot of people have been making
   serious efforts to *converge* on common terminology and meanings in
   their fields, and also between their fields, and tools such as crosswalks
   to highlight *similarities* and preserve *differences* where it matters.
   - One of the tools I use is *Suggested Upper Merged Ontology* (*SUMO*) -
   if I search on the word 'bus'
   
,
   it not only gives me the expected meaning, but a lot of other possible
   meanings ( which can cause side effects ).

This is only to answer the 'Designed by ... ?' comment. The complete list
of standard objections about complexity, interfaces, use by ordinary folks
has a considerable volume of academic work available on Google Scholar, if
anyone wanted to apply it to OSM.

A huge thanks for everyone who contributed to this discussion, I learned a
lot about OSM.

Michael Patrick
Data Ferret
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Anton Klim]

There are hotel lounges that offer showering facilities, but to access these 
lounges (executive lounges, clubs - they are called different names), you 
normally need to check in/be of elite status (hence the need for an access 
scheme described in the RFP). There are usually various amenities 
(food/drink/wlan) provided, if not showers, so a separate tagging scheme as 
suggested would be more convenient, rather than lounge=yes on the main node.

I feel like making this a PT tag limits it quite a bit, since some of these are 
a bit more than just a waiting room. Although admittedly most are connected to 
(public) transport, having a universal tag seems to allow better coverage 
overall. 

Anton

> 10/06/2018, 4:33, Johnparis :
> 
> I would think hotel lounges don't qualify, then, under what you're 
> describing. I've never seen one that offers showers. Hotel lounges are just 
> alcoholic bars in a hotel. You want a shower, you have to check in to the 
> hotel.
> 
> As a node or area (room?) within a public_transport=station, it makes sense 
> to me. I'd limit it to those. 
> 
> Are they really amenities? Maybe public_transport=lounge? Or 
> public_transport=station + lounge=yes ? Either way you would have the option 
> of wlan=yes/no, shower=yes/no, etc., though with the latter it's not clear 
> whether those options apply only within the lounge. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Anton Klim  wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply Volker!
>> 
>> I had in mind a tag to describe the first 2 of the definitions given by you 
>> (a hotel “lounge” in my mind is more like an airport lounge than a plain 
>> lobby). 
>> For alcoholic bars the current tagging scheme appears sufficient so I didn’t 
>> mean to cover that. That is not to say that there isn’t alcohol served at 
>> the other 2 types of “lounges”.
>> I believe a general approach might be too complicated/convoluted, especially 
>> in the case of waiting rooms at gov offices and the like - more indoor 
>> mapping territory to me. 
>> The proposal was designed to cover all the other, usually transport-related 
>> glorified waiting rooms/lounges. It can be used for simple waiting rooms, 
>> but is really useful for lounges with added amenities, e.g showers, food.
>> 
>> 
>> Anton
>> 
>> 9/06/2018, 22:20, Volker Schmidt :
>> 
>>> The term Lounge has several distinct meanings, amongst them
>>> Airport Lounge
>>> Hotel Lobby
>>> Alcohol Bar
>>> 
>>> Which one do you have in mind?
>>> 
>>> If the first one, then maybe a more general approach should be taken to 
>>> deal with all kinds of waiting rooms (at a train station, at a bus station, 
>>> at airports, at a medical facility, at the tax office, ...
>>> An Airport Lounge is more or less modelled on a first-class train-station 
>>> waiting room. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 On 9 June 2018 at 14:02, Anton Klim  wrote:
 Hey everyone,
 
 A prolonged waiting period spend sitting in a lounge gave me an 
 opportunity to send out the draft proposal for lounges, which can be found 
 here:
 https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lounges
 
 What is proposed:
 A distinct amenity=* value for lounges ( Lounge), usually used to describe 
 a comfortable waiting area with optional food/drink/other facilities, is 
 proposed. 
 
 I was quite surprised to see no tag was already in wide use/agreed on, but 
 happy to be proven wrong if I missed it.
 As usual with these things, suggestions/comments are very welcome.
 
 Have a good weekend,  
 Anton
 
 ___
 Tagging mailing list
 Tagging@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Clifford Snow]

On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:57 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> Francois
>
> I'm a little bit confused over some of your definitions?
>
> You say man_made=telephone_exchange is to be replaced with
> telecom=central_office, but then also say that a telecom=central_office "is
> a small dedicated technical building hosting a main distribution frame to
> connect subscribers to a telephone exchange"?
>
> From my days in telco, a central office could house a MDF, a switch,
digital carriers, broadband equipment, etc. I believe "telephone exchange"
is another word for switching equipment.

Digital equipment has changed typical central offices. MDF is likely still
there but often digital carriers serve small neighborhood areas. When I
left telco, digital signals were being processed by digital switches, with
no need for an MDF. A typical central office has uses other than for
switching equipment. It may act as a distribution point to other central
offices, provide dedicated local loops for special services, like alarms.

Of course, much of this is going away. Cell and voice over ip (VOIP) has
made much of this obsolete.

Clifford
-- 
@osm_seattle
osm_seattle.snowandsnow.us
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Johnparis]

I would think hotel lounges don't qualify, then, under what you're
describing. I've never seen one that offers showers. Hotel lounges are just
alcoholic bars in a hotel. You want a shower, you have to check in to the
hotel.

As a node or area (room?) within a public_transport=station, it makes sense
to me. I'd limit it to those.

Are they really amenities? Maybe public_transport=lounge? Or
public_transport=station + lounge=yes ? Either way you would have the
option of wlan=yes/no, shower=yes/no, etc., though with the latter it's not
clear whether those options apply only within the lounge.




On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 11:25 PM, Anton Klim  wrote:

> Thanks for the reply Volker!
>
> I had in mind a tag to describe the first 2 of the definitions given by
> you (a hotel “lounge” in my mind is more like an airport lounge than a
> plain lobby).
> For alcoholic bars the current tagging scheme appears sufficient so I
> didn’t mean to cover that. That is not to say that there isn’t alcohol
> served at the other 2 types of “lounges”.
> I believe a general approach might be too complicated/convoluted,
> especially in the case of waiting rooms at gov offices and the like - more
> indoor mapping territory to me.
> The proposal was designed to cover all the other, usually
> transport-related glorified waiting rooms/lounges. It can be used for
> simple waiting rooms, but is really useful for lounges with added
> amenities, e.g showers, food.
>
>
> Anton
>
> 9/06/2018, 22:20, Volker Schmidt :
>
> The term Lounge has several distinct meanings, amongst them
> Airport Lounge
> Hotel Lobby
> Alcohol Bar
>
> Which one do you have in mind?
>
> If the first one, then maybe a more general approach should be taken to
> deal with all kinds of waiting rooms (at a train station, at a bus station,
> at airports, at a medical facility, at the tax office, ...
> An Airport Lounge is more or less modelled on a first-class train-station
> waiting room.
>
>
>
> On 9 June 2018 at 14:02, Anton Klim  wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone,
>>
>> A prolonged waiting period spend sitting in a lounge gave me an
>> opportunity to send out the draft proposal for lounges, which can be found
>> here:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lounges
>>
>> What is proposed:
>> A distinct amenity =* value
>> for lounges ([image: [W]] Lounge ),
>> usually used to describe a comfortable waiting area with optional
>> food/drink/other facilities, is proposed.
>>
>> I was quite surprised to see no tag was already in wide use/agreed on,
>> but happy to be proven wrong if I missed it.
>> As usual with these things, suggestions/comments are very welcome.
>>
>> Have a good weekend,
>> Anton
>>
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Francois

I'm a little bit confused over some of your definitions?

You say man_made=telephone_exchange is to be replaced with
telecom=central_office, but then also say that a telecom=central_office "is
a small dedicated technical building hosting a main distribution frame to
connect subscribers to a telephone exchange"?

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] A system structured approach rather than piecemeal

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-06-10 01:30, Warin wrote:

> One of the problem is that these main tags don't come through the tagging 
> group .. they arrive through common use that sees a demand and satisfies it.
> 
> A problem with that is that the initial users see only their local issues and 
> don't see it on a global scale ..
> so it gets used in ways that were not part of the initial use/intent.
> Tight definitions are hard to do when you only see what you are wanting to 
> map, not seeing the wider picture.
> 
> Thus we have a mess to fix up.

Absolutely agree. Inherent in this is the fact that sometimes we go down
a path with tagging which, with hindsight, proves to be "wrong," for
example 
because it is insufficiently flexible or based on a misunderstanding of
a term (given that many mappers use English as a second language). When
such a 
situation arises we must be bold enough to acknowledge that the original
tagging should be replaced with new tagging. This is not an unexpected, 
unwanted situation - it should be a mainstream activity to apply more
recent thinking to outdated tagging. It should not cost so much energy
to make 
the case for this. Compare it with allowing for refactoring and
reworking in an Agile project - it is not a bad thing, it is a fact of
life. Fail fast 
and often - that leads to progress in the end. 

Colin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] A system structured approach rather than piecemeal

[Warin]

On 09/06/18 21:53, Thilo Haug OSM wrote:


I think what Mark wanted to express
is more about some general guidelines which could be established.

The  tagging systems are very inconsistent, just have a look at the
different "service" syntax (namespaces)
of a car vs. bicycle vs. motorcycle shop (and none for others).
There could be a system of different levels of discussions, for example.
I'm personally not keen on reading every single mail of every topic,
but there's no possibility to choose some topics.

To stay with the "shop" example :
There should be a consensus first what all shops have in common,
THEN the single shops may be discussed, not bottom-up.


Agree whole heartedly! Add sub tags to individual shops is not the way to go, 
there needs to be a common system for all shop values.


Same for the namespace syntax.

It would be good to have some simple voting system
without having to edit the page code.
So when people are able to choose their topics
and an easy way to vote, more will participate
and the "consensus" of currently some dozens
which are willing to withstand the current mess
would be on a broader base (really democratic).

So let's discuss the possible structural enhancements
instead of presuming political opinions
(he didn't really mention "strong leadership, did he ?)

Ideas ?


One of the problem is that these main tags don't come through the tagging group 
.. they arrive through common use that sees a demand and satisfies it.

A problem with that is that the initial users see only their local issues and 
don't see it on a global scale ..
so it gets used in ways that were not part of the initial use/intent.
Tight definitions are hard to do when you only see what you are wanting to map, 
not seeing the wider picture.

Thus we have a mess to fix up.

--
A structured system is far easier to learn/teach and comprehend compared to a 
system with lots of exception.
Look at the English languages an example of a system with lots of exceptions!
If the OSM structure is made into a systematic structure then OSM will be much 
better off.
Of course there will be continual deviations away from such structure give the 
free tagging approach,
but with time these can be adapted into the structure.



Am 09.06.2018 um 02:22 schrieb EthnicFood IsGreat:

     Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:29:25 +0200

From: Frederik Ramm 
To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
 
Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a
 top-level    tag

Hi,

it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call
for strong leadership to solve them once and for all. OSM is no
exception.

On 08.06.2018 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:

I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a
brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.

Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw?
And if something turns out to be designed wrongly, how will it be
challenged?

Of course any system would have to have a means of making revisions,
as better ways of tagging things become apparent over time.  There
could still be innovation.


And I wouldn't mind if
these keys were enforced from now on.

Not having an enforced set of keys and values was definitely a big part
of OSM's success (there *were* competing projects which got stuck trying
to define the one true set of keys and values that would work for
everything).

Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to
get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to
something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not
convinced; a lot of innovation is still going on with tags, and strict
enforcement would run the risk of killing that.


Someone some time ago on one
of the OSM mailing lists summed up the current situation by stating,
"It
seems OSM is incapable of moving forward."

OpenStreetMap is becoming a larger group of more diverse people with
more diverse interests, and since we don't - and don't aim to - have a
dictator at the top, things need to be done by consensus. These people
who take to the internet complaining about how OSM is incapable of
moving forward usually are people who are unwilling, or unable, to
convince the "great unwashed" their idea of "forward" is a good thing.
So they lament the lack of leadership and complain about "gatekeeping",
but it's really just them being unable to do the work required to
establish consensus in a large project.

Because that takes much more than a couple of blog posts (cf. the
license change).

Bye
Frederik



I have been editing in OSM for almost four years, and I've been a
member of this mailing list almost since then.  I read every single
post.  During that time I have never seen what I would consider a
consensus reached on anything.  I'm not sure it's even possible.
Whenever someone proposes a way to tag something, you can be
guaranteed that people will bring up every possible angle and

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 09/06/18 21:13, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote:


On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote:

On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote:

This analogy also means that competition is
essential for progress
in OSM.


How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more
mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than
before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved?


I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i
made.
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in
other
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation.

Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it?


With the passion shown on some subjects, I'd say OSM is very far from 
'stagnation'. :)


To me a stagnant pool is one with no life in it, no movement.
The OSM pool has ripples and waves of different opinions some of them 
clash and make turbulence. There is life in the OSM pool.


I suppose stagnation is not quite the right word. Ripples are evidence 
of energy, not progress being made. A boat straining against its 
anchor can make a splash, but the only effect is warming the sea up a 
little. I interpreted stagnation as not going anywhere.



Depends on you point of view.
If your the anchor looking back at the boat then it is not going anywhere.
If your the water looking at the boat then it is going somewhere.



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

[Paul Allen]

> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/
> Rehbrunnen_04.jpg/800px-Rehbrunnen_04.jpg
>

It strikes me that the water container was modelled after a horse trough.
Some public fountains with that form may
even have originated as horse troughs (and some may even be used as such
today).

The closest we have to a formal way of mapping horse troughs is documented
here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity=watering_place

That may be suitable if your fountain is in a location where it's
conceivable that horses or other animals
would be ridden, driven or herded by.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Anton Klim]

Thanks for the reply Volker!

I had in mind a tag to describe the first 2 of the definitions given by you (a 
hotel “lounge” in my mind is more like an airport lounge than a plain lobby). 
For alcoholic bars the current tagging scheme appears sufficient so I didn’t 
mean to cover that. That is not to say that there isn’t alcohol served at the 
other 2 types of “lounges”.
I believe a general approach might be too complicated/convoluted, especially in 
the case of waiting rooms at gov offices and the like - more indoor mapping 
territory to me. 
The proposal was designed to cover all the other, usually transport-related 
glorified waiting rooms/lounges. It can be used for simple waiting rooms, but 
is really useful for lounges with added amenities, e.g showers, food.


Anton

> 9/06/2018, 22:20, Volker Schmidt :
> 
> The term Lounge has several distinct meanings, amongst them
> Airport Lounge
> Hotel Lobby
> Alcohol Bar
> 
> Which one do you have in mind?
> 
> If the first one, then maybe a more general approach should be taken to deal 
> with all kinds of waiting rooms (at a train station, at a bus station, at 
> airports, at a medical facility, at the tax office, ...
> An Airport Lounge is more or less modelled on a first-class train-station 
> waiting room. 
> 
> 
> 
>> On 9 June 2018 at 14:02, Anton Klim  wrote:
>> Hey everyone,
>> 
>> A prolonged waiting period spend sitting in a lounge gave me an opportunity 
>> to send out the draft proposal for lounges, which can be found here:
>> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lounges
>> 
>> What is proposed:
>> A distinct amenity=* value for lounges ( Lounge), usually used to describe a 
>> comfortable waiting area with optional food/drink/other facilities, is 
>> proposed. 
>> 
>> I was quite surprised to see no tag was already in wide use/agreed on, but 
>> happy to be proven wrong if I missed it.
>> As usual with these things, suggestions/comments are very welcome.
>> 
>> Have a good weekend,  
>> Anton
>> 
>> ___
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>> 
> 
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

[marc marc]

Le 09. 06. 18 à 22:59, Mateusz Konieczny a écrit :
> 9. Jun 2018 22:02 by marc_marc :
> 
> man_made=pillar ? but it's obsoleted
> 
> 
> If it is the best fit it may be used.
> 
> 
> Image of the fountain would be helpful.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/22/Rehbrunnen_04.jpg/800px-Rehbrunnen_04.jpg
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

[Mateusz Konieczny]

9. Jun 2018 22:02 by marc_marc_...@hotmail.com 
:


> man_made=pillar ? but it's obsoleted
>




If it is the best fit it may be used. 




Image of the fountain would be helpful.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] wall and block that aren't a barrier

[marc marc]

Hello,

a mapper map small fountain with polygon
https://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/relation/8322503
I have nothing against the idea even if I would have used a node for 
such a small object

Of course amenity=fountain must be moved to the MP relation with 2 
polygons in stead of a invalid one.
But there are several questions about tags

- the concrete structure is currently filled by a retaining wall
barrier=retaining_wall
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:barrier=retaining_wall
according to osm wiki and wikipedia, a retaining wall is very fair away 
of a small tank containing water
A barrier is a physical structure which blocks or impedes movement,
this is not the case of a tank
Hor how to map this small tank ?
landuse=reservoir + content=water + material=concrete ?

- the stone block on the left where the water comes from
how to map it ?
man_made=pillar ? but it's obsoleted
fountain:support=stone like it's done for bridge:support ?
tourism=artwork + artwork_type=statue + material=ston ?

Regards,
Marc
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Volker Schmidt]

The term Lounge has several distinct meanings, amongst them
Airport Lounge
Hotel Lobby
Alcohol Bar

Which one do you have in mind?

If the first one, then maybe a more general approach should be taken to
deal with all kinds of waiting rooms (at a train station, at a bus station,
at airports, at a medical facility, at the tax office, ...
An Airport Lounge is more or less modelled on a first-class train-station
waiting room.



On 9 June 2018 at 14:02, Anton Klim  wrote:

> Hey everyone,
>
> A prolonged waiting period spend sitting in a lounge gave me an
> opportunity to send out the draft proposal for lounges, which can be found
> here:
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lounges
>
> What is proposed:
> A distinct amenity =* value
> for lounges ([image: [W]] Lounge ),
> usually used to describe a comfortable waiting area with optional
> food/drink/other facilities, is proposed.
>
> I was quite surprised to see no tag was already in wide use/agreed on, but
> happy to be proven wrong if I missed it.
> As usual with these things, suggestions/comments are very welcome.
>
> Have a good weekend,
> Anton
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 8. Jun 2018, at 10:22, Mateusz Konieczny  wrote:
> 
> I would start from easy wins, for example why we have both FIXME and fixme 
> tags?


+1
We have done something similar in the past: unification of yes, 1 and true for 
example. 



> Why we still have wikipedia:pl, wikipedia:en duplicating wikipedia keys?


they should not duplicate the wikipedia tag. These tags are meant for cases 
where wikipedia=* and interlinked pages of other languages are not sufficient. 
There can be several reasons for this, e.g. there are several articles for the 
same thing in osm, or the article in one language cannot be linked in wp (or 
simply isn’t yet linked), but should be linked in osm.

I don’t think we should change a significant amount of tags and restructure a 
lot of things, but there is a tiny fraction of unfortunate tags that could be 
rethought, in particular some few values of landuse, tourism and natural.

I also believe in principle in the system of tags emerging from mapping the 
world together, but it would require only or mostly mappers like you, who read 
the tagging mailing list and show general interest in tags. And we have already 
lost a lot of potential by imports. Imports generally work very bad together 
with a system like ours for creating tags (a system to describe the world). 
Most actual mappers (mapping by distinct user) don’t see tags, it’s all 
abstracted away from them behind presets and preset names (i.e. typically one 
word for the key/value pair, usually the value). Want an example? church and 
church. Both were presets for quite some time.


What ends up in the presets is decided by a group of programmers in Josm 
(ultimately by Dirk I believe, but he is typically not involved in preset 
questions AFAIK) and according to my experience just one maintainer in iD 
(Bryan). The only thing you can do to change a preset, remove it or add a new 
one is asking politely and explaining your reasoning, but there is typically no 
public discourse about presets, and while you can create alternative preset 
rules for josm if your plea was rejected, in iD there is nothing.

I do not intend to blame Bryan or Dirk for this, I can see it is simply because 
they are in the position where the decisions ultimately become code, and as 
there is no other process established yet, it is natural that it is like this, 
but I believe we should create a comunity led process to document and manage 
what ends up in presets / tag completion and maybe also in preset translations 
(many people use translations). For example while iD generally uses a sensible 
system to determine interesting tags (by usage), there are some “obscure” parts 
in the process which lead to some tags filtered out nonetheless they are used 
in bigger numbers, or in other occasions have been introducing tags which had 
no prior usage.
It is also clear that looking only at numbers is biased as well and cannot be 
the only answer to the problem, because some things occur more often than 
others, but being relatively rare doesn’t mean always something is not 
map-worthy. E.g. continents or country capitals are relatively rare, trash cans 
or traffic lights occur more often. And somehow it must either be determined 
which way of tagging is preferable or alternative ways should be presented and 
explained, what is generally not happening now.


Cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Erkin Alp Güney]

09-06-2018 16:56 tarihinde Paul Allen yazdı:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> A 'benevolent dictator'.
>
> Let us know if you find one.
>
>
> He's called Linus Torvalds.  Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux
> to be able to
> take control of OSM.  And some people object to his use of expletives.
>
> If somebody figures out how to clone him, though, we might reconsider. :)
We can call our founder, Steve Coast, for that duty.

Yours, faithfully
Erkin Alp

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[Mateusz Konieczny]

For building constructed to house such equipmentI would expect 
building=service, not building=yes

9. Jun 2018 14:38 by fl.infosrese...@gmail.com 
:


> Hi all,
> A new proposal is now available to describe telecom local networks, from 
> subscribers households to first network premises.
> Have a look here : > 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop 
> > 
> It introduces a brand new telecom=* key
> For now, only actual central offices, connection points and dslam in cabinet 
> are covered to not clutter the discussion.> man_made=MDF doesn't necessarily 
> have to be replaced by telecom=central_office but it would be great to do so.
> Further proposals will be needed to extend telecom=* key with cables, poles, 
> man holes which are currently out of scope.
>
> It's a collaborative work between 3 French contributors ZZ29, atabaraudand 
> myself.
> Feel free to comment in the Talk page please
> All the best
> François___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 9. Jun 2018, at 11:13, Neil Matthews  wrote:
> 
> I quite often find "access=no", replaced by "motor_vehicle=no" by armchair 
> editors -- I think they want to make sure that horses can use the bus lanes?



there’s a lot of vehicles and others that are allowed when changing from 
access=no to motor_vehicle=no, basically after the change everyone is allowed 
to use the feature, besides motor vehicles, before it was no one except 
otherwise stated. This is typically hard to survey from remote ;-)

cheers,
Martin 


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Paul Allen]

On Fri, Jun 8, 2018 at 8:01 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:

A 'benevolent dictator'.
>
> Let us know if you find one.
>

He's called Linus Torvalds.  Unfortunately, he's too busy with Linux to be
able to
take control of OSM.  And some people object to his use of expletives.

If somebody figures out how to clone him, though, we might reconsider. :)

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Paul Allen]

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 11:11 PM, Andy Townsend  wrote:

> On 07/06/18 23:00, Peter Elderson wrote:
>
>> I think landuse=forest should remain intact, for cases where forestry is
>> actually how the land is used.
>> So the tag is not deprecated, it's just applicated more consistently.
>>
>
> So you're proposing to change the meaning of a tag that has 3.5 million
> uses?
>
> I'm sure that you have only the best of intentions, but, er, good luck
> with that :)
>

Indeed.  Others have pointed out elsewhere that the only way to make this
sort of thing work is with new
tags, such as happened with landuse=farm.  Landuse=farm was ambiguous in
meaning, and the meaning
was unclear in the wiki.  It has been superseded with landuse=farmyard and
landuse=farmland, which cover
the two cases which were formerly dealt with by landuse=farm.

It is also clear (to me) that we should strive to create keys which have
unambiguous meanings in British
English (since that is the dialect used by OSM).  Landuse=forest could mean
a group of trees which are not
consistently used by a single organization for anything (and often called
"Xyz Forest" or "Pqr Wood"), or it
could mean an area used for forestry (and might currently have stumps,
saplings or mature trees).  Therefore we
should be promoting landuse=forestry (unambiguous) and landcover=trees
(somewhat ambiguous, but
for use where forestry isn't applicable), or whatever we eventually (3o
years from now?) decide upon.  To
a large extent, the problem we currently have with landuse=forest is that
it should have originally been
named landuse=forestry to prevent the ambiguous usage we now have with
landuse=forest.

It's no good arguing that the wiki should explain ambiguous tags because
people with English as a first
language often do not look at the wiki (they assume the tag means what it
says).  It would help,
though, if editor presets offered extra guidance (at least at the first
use) such as pointing out that
landuse=forestry and landcover=trees are possible alternatives and which
should be used in which
circumstance (again, assuming those are the two we decide upon 97 years
from now).

It's no good saying that a mass edit can fix it.  A mass edit (along with
changes to editor presets and
renderers) could only work if the tag were unambiguous and used correctly
in 99.99% of cases.  Unless
the proposer is willing to personally survey each use and decide whether or
not the new tag is
applicable, mass edits of ambiguous tags won't work.  A mass edit might be
sensible with a tag that is
mis-spelled, but it is not sensible for a tag which has been used to map
two or more different types of object
that we now realize should be mapped differently.

I now give you a quote from Fred Brooks Jr:

The management question, therefore, is not *whether* to build a pilot
system and throw it away. You *will*
do that. […] Hence

*plan to throw one away; you will, anyhow.*
He was writing of software projects.  And he's since partially recanted by
saying it's applicable only to
waterfall development.  But the concept still applies here.  The first time
you tackle a software project
(or design a mapping system like OSM) you don't fully comprehend the
requirements or how it will
actually be used.  What you end up with is imperfect, but you also learn
how to do it better the next time.

OSM evolved in an ad-hoc way.  The result is a set of tags which aren't
orthogonal and which aren't
all intuitive.  The ONLY way you can fix it is with a new project that
starts from scratch and requires
everything to be mapped from scratch (otherwise all you've done is fixed
"spelling errors" in tag names).
And, if you do that, even if what you come up with is perfect it will not
remain so because people keep
finding new types of things to match.  There isn't going to be a "next
time" with OSM (feel free to
prove me wrong by forking it and encouraging people to enter all the data
from scratch).

The best we can do with things like landuse=forest is come up with two or
more new tags, promote
the new tags, maybe have editors warn that the old tag is deprecated, and
let the old tag fade away.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Telecom local netwoks

[François Lacombe]

Hi all,

A new proposal is now available to describe telecom local networks, from
subscribers households  to first network premises.
Have a look here :
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Telecom_local_loop
It introduces a brand new telecom=* key

For now, only actual central offices, connection points and dslam in
cabinet are covered to not clutter the discussion.
man_made=MDF doesn't necessarily have to be replaced by
telecom=central_office but it would be great to do so.
Further proposals will be needed to extend telecom=* key with cables,
poles, man holes which are currently out of scope.

It's a collaborative work between 3 French contributors ZZ29, atabaraud and
myself.
Feel free to comment in the Talk page please

All the best

François
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Lounges

[Anton Klim]

Hey everyone,

A prolonged waiting period spend sitting in a lounge gave me an opportunity
to send out the draft proposal for lounges, which can be found here:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Lounges

What is proposed:
A distinct amenity =* value
for lounges ([image: [W]] Lounge ),
usually used to describe a comfortable waiting area with optional
food/drink/other facilities, is proposed.

I was quite surprised to see no tag was already in wide use/agreed on, but
happy to be proven wrong if I missed it.
As usual with these things, suggestions/comments are very welcome.

Have a good weekend,
Anton
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 105, Issue 26

[Thilo Haug OSM]

I think what Mark wanted to express
is more about some general guidelines which could be established.

The  tagging systems are very inconsistent, just have a look at the
different "service" syntax (namespaces)
of a car vs. bicycle vs. motorcycle shop (and none for others).
There could be a system of different levels of discussions, for example.
I'm personally not keen on reading every single mail of every topic,
but there's no possibility to choose some topics.

To stay with the "shop" example :
There should be a consensus first what all shops have in common,
THEN the single shops may be discussed, not bottom-up.
Same for the namespace syntax.

It would be good to have some simple voting system
without having to edit the page code.
So when people are able to choose their topics
and an easy way to vote, more will participate
and the "consensus" of currently some dozens
which are willing to withstand the current mess
would be on a broader base (really democratic).

So let's discuss the possible structural enhancements
instead of presuming political opinions
(he didn't really mention "strong leadership, did he ?)

Ideas ?

Am 09.06.2018 um 02:22 schrieb EthnicFood IsGreat:
>     Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:29:25 +0200
>> From: Frederik Ramm 
>> To: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"
>> 
>> Subject: Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a
>> top-level    tag
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> it is a gut reaction by people when forced with difficult issues to call
>> for strong leadership to solve them once and for all. OSM is no
>> exception.
>>
>> On 08.06.2018 01:29, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
>>> I wouldn't mind if all the existing tags were replaced tomorrow with a
>>> brand new set of "intelligently-designed" keys.
>> Designed by... a visionary leader? A board of experts? A random draw?
>> And if something turns out to be designed wrongly, how will it be
>> challenged?
>
> Of course any system would have to have a means of making revisions,
> as better ways of tagging things become apparent over time.  There
> could still be innovation.
>
>>
>>> And I wouldn't mind if
>>> these keys were enforced from now on.
>> Not having an enforced set of keys and values was definitely a big part
>> of OSM's success (there *were* competing projects which got stuck trying
>> to define the one true set of keys and values that would work for
>> everything).
>>
>> Some people say that while this may be true, the time has now come to
>> get rid of the old ways that got us where we are, and change tack to
>> something more conservative. This is a valid argument but I am not
>> convinced; a lot of innovation is still going on with tags, and strict
>> enforcement would run the risk of killing that.
>>
>>> Someone some time ago on one
>>> of the OSM mailing lists summed up the current situation by stating,
>>> "It
>>> seems OSM is incapable of moving forward."
>> OpenStreetMap is becoming a larger group of more diverse people with
>> more diverse interests, and since we don't - and don't aim to - have a
>> dictator at the top, things need to be done by consensus. These people
>> who take to the internet complaining about how OSM is incapable of
>> moving forward usually are people who are unwilling, or unable, to
>> convince the "great unwashed" their idea of "forward" is a good thing.
>> So they lament the lack of leadership and complain about "gatekeeping",
>> but it's really just them being unable to do the work required to
>> establish consensus in a large project.
>>
>> Because that takes much more than a couple of blog posts (cf. the
>> license change).
>>
>> Bye
>> Frederik
>>
>
>
> I have been editing in OSM for almost four years, and I've been a
> member of this mailing list almost since then.  I read every single
> post.  During that time I have never seen what I would consider a
> consensus reached on anything.  I'm not sure it's even possible.
> Whenever someone proposes a way to tag something, you can be
> guaranteed that people will bring up every possible angle and nuance
> concerning the meaning of the tag, and nobody wants to compromise.
> Consequently there is never a consensus.  Eventually people get tired
> of the debate, when they see it's a no-win situation, and the debate
> just dies away, until somebody brings it up again next year. Case in
> point:  the current issue of landuse versus landcover. There was no
> consensus the last time this was brought up and there is none now.
>
> I've seen several tags debated more than once in four years.  I can
> only assume that each time, a different group of people get drawn in
> to the discussion, unaware that the issue has been debated before,
> with no resolution.  This cycle is doomed to repeat itself over and
> over, as long as OSM proceeds the way it is.  A waste of time and effort!
>
> I don't see how OSM can work well when mappers are free to tag however
> they want.  Different people have diametrically opposed ideas about
> how things should b

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-06-09 13:00, Warin wrote:

> On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote: 
> 
> On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote: 
> On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that 
> competition is essential for progress
> in OSM.

How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved? 
I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.  
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other 
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation. 
Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it? 
With the passion shown on some subjects, I'd say OSM is very far from
'stagnation'. :) 

To me a stagnant pool is one with no life in it, no movement. 
The OSM pool has ripples and waves of different opinions some of them
clash and make turbulence. There is life in the OSM pool. 

I suppose stagnation is not quite the right word. Ripples are evidence
of energy, not progress being made. A boat straining against its anchor
can make a splash, but the only effect is warming the sea up a little. I
interpreted stagnation as not going anywhere.

Colin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

[José G Moya Y .]

IHi!
I think bike/charriot/horse/motorbike access should not be taked for
granted in bus lanes, as you said.

In my city, bikes are forbidden in bus lanes. They are too narrow to allow
a bus overpass a bycicle, and not all bycicles are faster than a bus.

In Madrid, bikes should use the rightmost lane that is not a bus lane; if
there are more non-bus lanes in the street, leftmost non-bus lane will be
considered a 30kph "shared" lane (and the other ones 50kph lanes).

Yours,
José.



El sáb., 9 de junio de 2018 11:14, Neil Matthews 
escribió:

> I quite often find "access=no", replaced by "motor_vehicle=no" by armchair
> editors -- I think they want to make sure that horses can use the bus lanes?
>
> Neil
>
> On 08/06/2018 13:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>
> 2018-06-08 10:44 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe :
>
>>
>> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I find
>> this too restrictive.
>> Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot.
>> It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes actually
>>
>
>
> for bus _lanes_ access=no will typically make sense, for bus _roads_ (i.e.
> only busses allowed on the road, but there might be other non-lanes
> included in the highway, like sidewalks) I have sometimes found this
> applied by error, because mappers forgot about the pedestrians.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing 
> listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Warin]

On 09/06/18 19:20, Colin Smale wrote:


On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote:


On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote:

This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress
in OSM.


How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved?


I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation.

Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it?


With the passion shown on some subjects, I'd say OSM is very far from 
'stagnation'. :)


To me a stagnant pool is one with no life in it, no movement.
The OSM pool has ripples and waves of different opinions some of them 
clash and make turbulence. There is life in the OSM pool.
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-06-09 10:51, Christoph Hormann wrote:

> On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote: This analogy also means that 
> competition is essential for progress
> in OSM.

How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
"better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
What defined "goals" have we achieved? 
I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.  
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other 
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation. 

Stagnation is exactly where we are heading, isn't it? 

Phrases like "best map in/of the world" are fine in corporate mission
statements but it's hardly SMART[1]. 

Colin 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART_criteria___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Access=no for bus lanes

[Neil Matthews]

I quite often find "access=no", replaced by "motor_vehicle=no" by
armchair editors -- I think they want to make sure that horses can use
the bus lanes?

Neil

On 08/06/2018 13:18, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2018-06-08 10:44 GMT+02:00 François Lacombe  >:
>
>
> it's written that dedicated bus lanes should get access=no and I
> find this too restrictive.
> Such lanes can also be accessible by cabs, bikes or by foot.
> It's sounds to be a mean to prevent cars only to take those lanes
> actually
>
>
>
> for bus _lanes_ access=no will typically make sense, for bus _roads_
> (i.e. only busses allowed on the road, but there might be other
> non-lanes included in the highway, like sidewalks) I have sometimes
> found this applied by error, because mappers forgot about the pedestrians.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 09 June 2018, Colin Smale wrote:
> >> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress
> >> in OSM.
>
> How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is
> "better" than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is
> our data quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before?
> What defined "goals" have we achieved?

I have not defined progress and don't need to for the argument i made.  
It applies for any definition of progress you might have.  Or in other 
words: Here it just means the opposite of stagnation.

Most people probably agree that in the OSM context the ultimate goal is 
to create the best map of the world.  And that for this you need a 
global community of active local mappers.  But this and all the details 
around it is a very different subject for which this is not really the 
right venue.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Colin Smale]

On 2018-06-09 10:00, Christoph Hormann wrote:

>> This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in 
>> OSM.

How do we define "progress"? How do we conclude if OSM today is "better"
than in the past? Are our processes becoming more mature? Is our data
quality improving? Do we have more "customers" than before? What defined
"goals" have we achieved? 

I don't mean to be cynical, but I am truly unable to work out what our
defined aims are, so that we may measure progress against them.
Continued existence doesn't count by the way. 

Colin___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] The endless debate about "landcover" as a top-level tag

[Christoph Hormann]

On Saturday 09 June 2018, EthnicFood IsGreat wrote:
>
> I have been editing in OSM for almost four years, and I've been a
> member of this mailing list almost since then.  I read every single
> post. During that time I have never seen what I would consider a
> consensus reached on anything.  I'm not sure it's even possible.
> [...]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of consensus here as it 
applies to OSM overall.  This does not require explicit agreement by 
all mappers, this would not be feasible.  Consensus is more about 
finding the overall or on average most satisfying approach to a 
problem.

> I've seen several tags debated more than once in four years.  I can
> only assume that each time, a different group of people get drawn in
> to the discussion, unaware that the issue has been debated before,
> with no resolution.  This cycle is doomed to repeat itself over and
> over, as long as OSM proceeds the way it is.  A waste of time and
> effort!

If you try to follow evey tagging debate here and on the wiki i agree, 
this is very frustrating and wasteful.  I prefer to see this as a 
statistical process.  We are a diverse global community, it is 
unavoidable that every topic of significance gets discussed many 
times - in different languages and in different settings.  And often 
even more than once in the same setting as you mention.  Everyone is 
free to ignore any of these discussions and should do so when it seems 
wise to do that.  But every now and then one of these discussions 
yields a new idea no one had before and in some of these cases someone 
picks up this idea and communicates it further so it might be adopted 
by the community at large.

I have learned to mentally filter out the discussions here centered 
around key systematics for example over time (though i am sometimes 
complementing if there are some keywords i could use for automatic 
filtering).

> I don't see how OSM can work well when mappers are free to tag
> however they want.  Different people have diametrically opposed ideas
> about how things should be done.  For example, some people think the
> meaning of a tag in OSM should be the dictionary meaning of the word;
> others are okay with a tag word having a "special" meaning in OSM. 
> How is a mapper to decide?  There is no consensus on this issue. 

I think this confusion comes from the fact that you are looking for 
structure where there is none to be found.  Freedom to tag means the 
mappers can decide on a new tag in any way they like.  If they choose 
badly other mappers are less likely to pick up their choice and make it 
a widely used tag.  Yes, very wasteful again for someone who is used to 
a top down approach.

Maybe the best analogy for tagging in OSM is biological evolution.  You 
could also kind of argue that evolution can't work with individuals 
mostly dying at random and arbitrary genetic mutations deciding on how 
things develop.  Bio-engineering would be so much more efficient - 
except that we would be way over our heads with the decisions what 
genetic traits are actually advantageous in the grand scheme of things.

This analogy also means that competition is essential for progress in 
OSM.  We need more competition on all levels - both from outside OSM 
(which is why the idea of a fork with a more structured tagging system 
is a good one) and from inside in form of more map styles featuring 
different sets of tags.  The way OSM works depends on these things as 
incentives for progress - just like evolution depends on ecological 
niches and competition for creating diversity and selection pressure.

> Although OSM has a policy of "any tag you like," based on the posts
> I've read, it seems most mappers want some guidance when it comes to
> tagging.  I deduce this from all the posts I read from contributors
> having to do with editing and refining the wiki.  However, there
> isn't even agreement on the purpose of the wiki.

You probably have - based on this particular discussion - a somewhat 
exaggerated impression of the lack of agreement.  There is a small but 
voiceful group of people who like to push certain ideas in this matter 
and are willing to bend or ignore both established rules and the vast 
majority of mappers to do that.  But there is no serious question on 
the main purpose of the tag documentation part of the wiki, this stems 
from the very principles of OSM.  If some people ignore those rules or 
question them in dicussions this does not mean they cease to exist.

And i think you are not correct with your assessment of what most 
mappers want.  Most mappers are not native English speakers so they 
would not receive most guidance created by some tagging authority 
anyway.  Most mappers want tags that represent what they see in 
reality, not something that fits into the systematics thought up by 
some committee of people from Central Europe and North America with no 
clue about the diversity in culture and geography world wide.

--