>>the current situation of tags being informally defined, partially checked >>by various tools and partially supported by many is also not very good. > > I'm going to have to wade though the mire here and add my opinion. Why do > you argue that the "situation of tags being informally defined, partially > checked by various tools and partially supported by many is also not very > good". Since the project began I've seen lots of people argue that it just > won't work because there is no formal structure, especially for tags, those > of us on the other side of the fence argue that's exactly why its been > successful. We have built one of the richest geographical data resources > available to man and we have done it in a very short time and without any > real training whatsoever. So I disagree that the method of freeform tagging > is "not very good" and on the contrary it's actually more than surprisingly > good.
Well, we all have opinions, but I don't have real world data how useful or useless is freeform tagging, so I won't say it is good or bad. From what I have heard from newbies and people who wanted to use OSM freefrom tagging is some sort of blocker or annoyance, because they want to tag things, but they don't know how. "Tag it and it will come" won't work for them because they don't want to waste their time to create another tag which no one will use - emotional state which sometimes have left me wondering what I want to do with OSM actually. Freeform taging is one side of spectrum, but I think we should be in the middle. Some basic tagging should be mandatory and standardized. Principles should be standardized. Rest can be left for experimentation and fun and I agree partly that having not very strict and mandatory way of how tags get accepted is one of the main reasons of OSM popularity. However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't clean up time after time. I would like to point out that most of stuff what is mapped (roads, transportation) is kinda strictly standardized already with OSM features wiki and even a small change in definition causes rather big uproar. So people like some standardization - even if you don't. >> >>if we had at least a set of standardized rules that we could easily apply >>to any section of the map, >>that would be usable from all programs, in libs and other tools, they we >>would move in the right direction. > > But the dilemma of this is that by standardising the tags we increase the > complexity of contribution and its contribution of data that matters wholly > and singularly to us. Once we have a "complete" data set then those with a > need for a standardised tag system can add those tags that fit strict rules > and in fact there is nothing to stop anyone adding this now, they are just > additional tags and another way to view the world. I disagree that standardization of tags would increase complexity of contribution, in opposite - in complex cases it liberates mapper from inventing things again and again. It let's you concentrate on mapping, not on bike shading. What I think that we should have *some* standardization efforts time after time, but it doesn't forbid for someone to try new things. We can't and won't afford a huge standartisation comitee, but we could have some clean up force. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
