2009/10/3 Gervase Markham <[email protected]>: > My view is not that we should have one committee, but that groups of > people with particular expertise should come together to develop the tag > sets for particular areas (e.g. canals, mountain biking), those should
I was starting small, I thought if we could at least get a core set that would a) stop the constant pointless/endless debates over the same thing all the time, b) give people a known good footing on where to start, c) have consistency for the entire database so that if people edit things in one region (regardless if it's a county, state/province/territory/whatever, county/local government area) it won't matter because everyone should be doing something very similar if not the same. If there is a need for more granular committees then so be it, but there is some fairly fundamental things that need to be addressed, like street numbering, like foot paths/cycle ways. > Wikipedia has much less need for consistency than we do (e.g. it doesn't > matter if one article is in American English and another in Australian > English; articles are not machine-parsed) and yet they have all sorts of > mechanisms for ensuring it. Exactly, what we're dealing with is the equivolent if all the wikipedia information was in a single article and that article has to be readable and not disjointed. > As Russ says, freeform tagging != anarchy. Some freeform tagging != anarchy, but completely freeform tagging would be chaos... _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
