> If that sounds like a lot of work -- it was! And just for a single tag! > But THAT is the scope and scale of effort that it's going to take to > change tagging that has tens to hundreds of thousands of objects tagged. > You need overwhelming agreement AND enough support from motivated > community members to make all the pieces of the ground game come > together. Is this an indication that our community is dysfunctional? > Maybe. But it's 100% the reality that we live in if you want to > accomplish wide-ranging change. > > If you want to propose tagging for something that's never been mapped > before, a proposal is a great way to ensure that the tag you're making > up is reasonable. If you want to make a change of significant scope and > scale to tagging on the project, you must understand that a proposal is > only a single tool to generate support for your idea, which must be part > of a broader effort towards consensus-building and community action. >
If you want to put it bluntly: YES, this project is really dysfunctional in this case. It takes time to "clean up" and organize one's system and effectively people misunderstand the implications of the proposal process. Editors in particular point out that a tag is not approved. However, the majority of users map according to wiki or editor specifications. (Where especially JOSM never followed the proposal and kept the old tagging in its specifications). And I don't go along with it at all that that's 100% reality. I work in the field of process optimization. Among other things with customers in the health sector, but also very many other areas, chemistry, construction. Companies from 500 to 50k employees. Nowhere have I seen such dysfunctional countercurrents to standardization and simplification. Not even remotely. It is well known and state of the art that simplification and systematization clearly lead to positive effects on a system. Anyone who ignores this does not think that there is a future. At some point I stopped counting how often I heard "We've always done it this way" at the beginning, but what I heard at the end, after many steps had been implemented and optimized: "Oh, that's going much better now". And that's exactly what we're hiding from here again. YES, such steps are uncomfortable. But structural optimization always brings positive effects at the end. Above all, I find it dysfunctional that criticism is not voiced right from the start, but only at the end, when it is the very last thing to be mentioned for adjustments (here in the proposal). Also always this "Mappers have decided" - no, it's the editors. It's the editors that provide presets. And if we as a community don't want to "push through" when a proposal has been accepted, then it will always be based on the decision of a few individual programmers. Who should own a project? And then it becomes clear again what the proposal itself has as a systematic building block for a meaning. And now I'm really asking: What speaks against standardization? And above all against the enforcement of consensus and proposals? I only see negative effects that many end up cringe in frustration if we don't take seriously the importance of this tool.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
