Hi, > why fix it later, that creates extra work? and what do you mean > 'fixed'? i thought having them mapped with one of 3 different tagging > schemes was a good thing?
I agree with Dave's responses so won't repeat them. Just a few extra points: > no-one's forcing anybody. lots of people use map_features for a > reason. they clearly don't want to spend time coming up with new tags, > cos it's boring and tedious - they want to map, cos it's fun and > interesting and involves being outside. There's nothing against documenting what tags are in use. I'm all for doing that, and if I find a tag in use that's not on Map Features, ord used differently than described in Map Features, I will add it there or make the change. I just reject any normative component - tags are on Map Features because they're used, not tags may be used because they're on Map Features. > if people wanted to come up > with new (duplicate) tags, they would be. thankfully, there are very > few duplicate tags As Dave has said, it really is a matter of your level of abstraction. I agree with you that having two different tags for absolutely the same thing is perhaps unnecessary. But if someone, after having this pointed out to him, would prefer to continue using "his" tag - that's fine, maybe he has a reason; maybe is an expert in the subject matter and knows that the existing tag is misleading or imprecise. He must be allowed to use whathe thinks is right without people requesting him to justify his actions. But most things are not exactly the same, just 95% the same. You say: > i would > put a note, and get one of two responses: "this isn't a duplicate, > it's similar, but different enough" (e.g. cemetery vs. graveyard), I think my main point is just that the decision whether something is duplicate or "different enough" should always remain with the mapper. >> make 49% of them unhappy and/or unwilling to map the item in question. > > hold on, what do you mean unhappy? says who? 49% might well be the > worst case, but what's the actual case? it could be 10%. or 0.1% As you say, people map because they like doing it. Some like to be told what to do, others' enthusiasm is ruined if someone says to them that they should (for example) use "highway=traffic_signals, crossing=traffic_signals, bicycle=no, segregated=no, crossing_ref=pelican" instead of "crossing=pelican". (By the way: I have removed the notion that crossing=pelican was "deprecated" from they Key:crossing page - OpenStreetMap does not have a body that has the power to say a tag was "deprecated". I thought we had this discussion before?) If someone has mapped 500 crossings with crossing=pelican because he finds this sensible and along comes someone to tell him his tag usage was "deprecated" because 10 others who, taken together, have mapped perhaps 50 crossings think so - what do you think, will this person really continue to work with the same enthusiasm? In OpenStreetMap, we do not normally sacrifice individuals for the sake of some greater good - at least not if it is easily avoidable. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
