2010/2/2 NopMap <[email protected]>: > It becomes rather disillusioning when they find out how things really are. > Most do not want to search wikis, read through discussion backlogs, design > new tags, decide between contradictive tool presets, join meta discussions > about the meaning of voting, ask questions about contradictions in wiki > contents. > > Most simply want to map and would find a finished catalogue with a single > tagging scheme a huge improvement.
I read very often about this, and am asking myself: why is noone proposing / offering such a catalogue? It would be simple as that: set up a catalogue with all your definitions and publish it for newbies to be used. Oh, and update it say on a daily basis ;-) I find that things are improving generally (while some might have become worse). Slowly the wiki seems to get better, more keys get documented, etc. IMHO the problem with documentation is like Liz pointed out: you "have to" create a proposal, look for cryptic Wiki-code-patterns, stick to dates for RFC, voting, etc., discuss your proposal with many critics, copy the proposal to features if everything went well: it's a lot of work for every single feature and in the end most of talk will laugh at you and tell you: nice you got this feature voted upon, but votings don't matter, and btw: there were only 30 people voting out of 200000, the vote is pointless. You will not do this for more than a handfull of features. If I come across some weird (and mostly contradictic definitions) in the wiki, I sometimes try to correct the situation (if it's not one of the classical unsolved cases that I know of). If after every discussion on one of the mailing-list the conclusion would be transfered to the wiki, most features would probably have standard tags to rely on. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
