OSM has much in common with language and, it can be said, maps (heh, in a 
mathematical sense) fairly directly onto language:  plastic tagging syntax, 
rules which sometimes get broken, vivid semiotics which change with what we 
wish the map to visually "do" for us and usage which newly defines different 
and often better ways of doing things.  (Among many other things in common with 
language).  I wouldn't call OSM terribly strict, but it does have tenets and 
traditions (consensus is one, having fun is another), even as these grow and 
(slowly) change.  As a project, it is organic and human and good to remind 
ourselves of that every once in a while.  Thanks everybody, this has been 
rewarding for me.

Zooming out,
Talk-ca mailing list

Reply via email to