Tom, > Sounding impressive is not a valid reason to consider something a good > idea... Basically he's suggesting replacing our current freeform tagging > with some complicated system of rules and ontologies.
But being rude and oversimplifying is valid? As already mentioned, it does not have to be hierarchical and rigid, or even what you are worried about: mandatory. > It's completely not the "osm way" and isn't going to fly. I have not been working on OSM long, but I am sick of hearing this already from people. What you mean is below. > It's completely not the "osm way" *as I interpret it* and isn't going to fly > *as long as I am around*. There, fixed it for you. The beauty of OSM and similar open data projects, as I interpret it, is that there is wonderfully large dataset that allows people to do almost whatever they want. Not to mention that we are only talking about organizing the documenting of it, and learn about the inherent ontological structure. Some people might find that as valuable, if not more, than the maps. Does that mean you should just kick us out right now unless we agree to the mysteriously vague [my|OSM] way? Should we all agree to certain OSM non-principles that we will not enforce or consider as members of the group? I am just curious what this sentence is going to mean in the future, because "isn't going to fly" sounds slightly dictatorial in my mind. I could be wrong. I know this sounds like an opening to a flamewar. If I have gone too far, I am sorry. This is not a personal attack, but I think such talk is not in the spirit of the OSM way people like to toss around and defend. I think a little more consideration than "we have never done it that way before, so we won't be in the future" is warranted. Best, _AJS _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
