I largely agree, but I have found there are times and places where explicitly saying "this particular wiki here is being PREscriptive (should be done), rather than the usual tone of DEscriptive (as done now)" can be a value-add to both our map and our wiki (in the long run). When done well and right, this practice can encourage a messy state in the map into a more orderly one, with the wiki aiding in displaying progress, "how far along" this is. When this "task" (or "project" as it is a good chunk of work) is done, the wiki can describe itself as descriptive (like most are) and it fully self-documents. This really works, but such "macro states" are best declared quite explicitly, so that people know how a particular wiki is being used. (The vast majority are indeed "how things are actually mapped.") It starts with a goal, a prescriptive description of "how things should be" is asserted, then we build it. Finally (sort of), around the time it's "done" (or it gets close, as some things are never "done") we say "this is how it is." This practice is not THAT unusual, even if some wiki pages are explicit about it and others are less so or not.
A subset of these are something we used to call "WikiProjects" but somehow that moniker seems to have dissolved. SteveA > On Aug 21, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Paul Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > I feel like now is a good time to remind folks that the wiki should be > descriptive of how things are actually mapped, not strictly proscriptive. _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
