On tagwatch, one idea for these would have been voting features of the form "mark this usage as error/typo". Of course, that could be extended to voting for "good" tags too..
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote: > > 80n and I were just discussing this issue over coffee. We both feel that > > generating tag lists from planet is a good idea, but to give prominence > to > > them (ranking if you like) it would be good to have the number of users > for > > a particular tag rather than the actual occurrence of the tag in the > > database. > > But that doesn't take into account the relative occurrences of the > feature. Perhaps only 10 canal-mad people in the UK will ever use the > "mooring" tag. Does that make the tag less > useful/important/official/correct/anything than the highway tag which > thousands of people use? If 25 people mistakenly use "highwey=primary" > instead of highway, does that make it more correct than using the > mooring tag? > > The database can tell us what _is_, but _is_ does not imply _ought_. We > can either decide that OSM has no view on _ought_ (and just have a > free-for-all), or we can take advantage of the accumulated mapping > expertise of OSM participants and have a set of best-practice "ought"s. > This is what we do now with Map_Features, some of which were carefully > designed after considering several other tagging schemes for that > feature type which seem good at first glance but turn out to have flaws. > > Gerv > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
