2012/2/20 Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net>: > Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine > detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak > out against mass edits that attempt to do just that.
I have to disagree. If the tag structure is not homogenised, it makes the data useless. Non-standard and/or undocumented tags are impossible to process in any reasonable way, even if they look perfectly complete and informative to human. The possibility of free tags is great, but once some tagging style proves as usable (and better than any other), it should become a standard and used exclusively (or be challenged by a better one later). Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2012/2/20 Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net>: > On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote: >> >> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill<o...@raggedred.net> wrote: >>> >>> I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. >>> >>> There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are >>> free to use *any* tags they like. >> >> ... >>> >>> Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works any >> >> How would you know whether a tag had "acceptance"? Wouldn't >> documenting it somewhere make sense? Maybe...in a wiki? > > I did say document and discuss the OP. > >> What would you >> call "acceptance"? Would "approved" be a reasonable synonym for that? > > No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other tags, > sometimes with mass edits. > >> >> The wiki and (currently broken) approval mechanism is not some >> horrible bureaucracy that exists to ruin your life. It's there so we, >> as a community, can document the tags we use, and agree on how we use >> them. While it's ok to spontaneously invent a new tag and use it to >> solve your current problem, you can surely see the benefits of >> everyone eventually converging on the same tag? >> >> And if so, what would you do with all the old tags that people used >> before you converged? Wouldn't you "deprecate" them? > > No, some tags will wither away, fine. Some seemingly similar tags will exist > side-by-side and that is fine too. Most importantly, distinctive differences > can emerge too. > > Just think this through. Approval implies some sort of enforcement, without > enforcement what is the point of approval? Just who would make this > enforcement happen and how? What would that do to an open project? If only > approved tags are used then how would mappers map what they actually see? > Wait weeks for some committee to discuss, argue and approve or reject the > tag? If you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for? > > If approval or 'acceptance' means a tag is rendered or used in a router or > whatever then which tool do you mean? There are hundreds run by OSM and > other organisations, companies and individuals. > > Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine > detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to speak > out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. > > > -- > Cheers, Chris > user: chillly > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
