Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 24

[Michael Patrick]

> A 'top-down' process where some
> data analyst or small team prescribes the tagging would no doubt have
> resulted in a tidier and more consistent model - but it would likely
> have let to a more limited one, with less mapper engagement. Moreover,
> it would have embodied the cultural assumptions of the people who
> created it, and struggle to model features that do not exist or are
> very different in another culture.

+1

However, I would disagree that the top down approach results in
a tidier and consistent model, the opposite usually occurs, and
even messier than OSM, because resource limitations result
in everything being thrown into the pot with little attempt at
harmonization via an analysis then synthesis process ( repeating
as required ). http://factmyth.com/analysis-and-synthesis-explained/
The talk tab on a Wikipedia page is far more informative than the
actual page itself, and show how much process actually went into it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ditch

>... embodied the cultural assumptions of the people who created it

+1

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Tagging Digest, Vol 113, Issue 23

[Michael Patrick]

>. Another insists that before betas can be mapped, we need a whole
taxonomy of Greek letters, 

LoL!

Actually, you would also need the Albanian variations of the Greek
alphabet to accommodate place names, just to be thorough. :-)

Michael
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 5:56 PM Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is 
> great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know) 
> members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call 
> contributing to list discussions more than once a week). So 20 of us are 
> deciding which tags 75 mappers should use, & pretty well have the vote of 
> life or death to new proposals!

The vast majority of those mappers are inactive, maybe one in ten or
twenty actually maps regularly.  And the vast majority of those 4
or so are entirely content to map features for which good existing
tagging exists. Only a handful of us are actually interesting in
pushing the frontier of what is mappable. That's not necessarily
alarming.

> I know the list is open for anyone to subscribe to, & join in discussions as 
> they see fit, but I'd think that a lot of newbie mappers would have a read of 
> the occasionally strident, & sometimes scathing, comments made towards 
> proposals here & think, Woah, I'm not going in there! :-(

Yeah.  I stick around because I'm an open-sourcerer from way back, and
have already come to understand that having the first reaction to a
proposal be a chorus of 'it s*ks'  (where the asterisk, is of course,
replaced by 'tin' ;))  is high praise. It indicates that what you're
doing is important enough to capture the attention and excite the
passion of commenters - and that it's near enough the mark that
they're willing to tell you how to improve it.  The real killer is the
people who smile and tell you 'very nice.' They don't care.

Frankly, I've found no forum in which it's possible to get sound
tagging advice - if I can't find something for myself on the Wiki,
taginfo, overpass, etc., I'm better off sending private mail to a few
other, more experienced, mappers whom I trust. It's not worth the
effort of discussing any new ideas on this list until I have not only
a well-fleshed-out proposal, but also some experience with mapping the
feature in question. (And I will confess to being less than assiduous
about wikifying what I've done.)

There are people who are profoundly uncomfortable with the way that a
'folksonomy' works, or who are also data consumers who are acutely
aware of the limitations of such a process in terms of getting usable
data in a repeatable representation. For this reason, uniform tagging
is important - but we have a history of achieving that through the
messy and inconsistent 'bottom up' process and the principle of 'he
who does the work makes the rules.' A 'top-down' process where some
data analyst or small team prescribes the tagging would no doubt have
resulted in a tidier and more consistent model - but it would likely
have let to a more limited one, with less mapper engagement. Moreover,
it would have embodied the cultural assumptions of the people who
created it, and struggle to model features that do not exist or are
very different in another culture.

The messy 'wiki-style' process, I think, yields more robust results in
the long run, but $LC_DEITY, it's painful to participate in. ("Those
who eat sausage and respect the law should not watch either one being
made," and making data models is very like making laws.) It's
important for all participants to remember just how much everyone's
patience is strained, and try to be gentle.

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Jarek Piórkowski]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 17:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick  wrote:
> What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is 
> great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know) 
> members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would call 
> contributing to list discussions more than once a week). So 20 of us are 
> deciding which tags 75 mappers should use, & pretty well have the vote of 
> life or death to new proposals!

Those numbers are a little misleading. First, there are about 4
mappers active in past 30 days, as with much of internet most users
are inactive. Second, I would say a bigger influence in "which tags
mappers should use" is held by maintainers of iD and other
beginner-friendly editors, which if anything is a number smaller than
20. (I would guess people using JOSM or the like are more
statistically likely to invent a sensible tag even if not proposed or
documented.)

--Jarek

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, 6 Feb 2019 at 06:50, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> This is a scenario in which, as far as I can tell, Mary and Mike have
> done everything right, but the community has failed them. Which of
> these likely outcomes is the 'least worst'?
>

Thanks Kevin, unfortunately you've summed up fairly well the way that
things frequently seem to happen. :-(

There will also, though, usually be a couple of lonely little voices who
support the (quite good) proposal & make constructive suggestions to change
it from "alpha=betas are found in trees" to "usually found in trees, but
can be found in caves"; while someone else points out that alpha=charlies
are often found in close proximity. Unfortunately, these supporting, on
topic, comments are usually drowned out in the arguments over Greek
spelling.

What concerns me a bit, is that there are 75+ OSM mappers, which is
great! But it would seem that there are only ~50 (? - someone would know)
members of "Tagging", with only ~20 of those being active (which I would
call contributing to list discussions more than once a week). So 20 of us
are deciding which tags 75 mappers should use, & pretty well have the
vote of life or death to new proposals!

I know the list is open for anyone to subscribe to, & join in discussions
as they see fit, but I'd think that a lot of newbie mappers would have a
read of the occasionally strident, & sometimes scathing, comments made
towards proposals here & think, Woah, I'm not going in there! :-(

We have a formal rule of "any tags you like", but apparently we're
> converging on a _de facto_ rule of "ask permission before applying any
> tag unless you see that it was the subject of a previously approved
> proposal." Is that the rule we want?
>

No, it's not

Thanks

Graeme
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Warin]

On 06/02/19 07:59, Paul Allen wrote:
On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Kevin Kenny > wrote:



The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent
the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist.
Someone else insists that betas are really just another kind of bees.
A third person insists that there's no way to be certain in the field
that what you're looking at is a beta, so the proposal should fail on
verifiability. Another insists that before betas can be mapped, we
need a whole taxonomy of Greek letters, and the discussion rapidly
devolves into a long digression about whether θ and ϑ are really the
same letter because one is printed and the other is cursive.


That's a very idealized description of the process.  It normally 
doesn't work that well.




Agreed.

The proposal precess is confronting and in most cases less than helpfull.
A simple question of how to map a tree area goes off for how many 
responses .. demonstrating a disregard for the poster.


And now there is a move not to let people document the tag they create!

This can result in mappers creating tags, as they should and are 
'allowed', but being unable to document them,
so they cannot map things effectively because they  cannot communicate 
what they are mapping... so they simply leave OSM.
It also results in tags with a lot of use .. but not documented so no 
one knows what they are ..

and they could now well be not what was indented by the original mappers.

I would advise anyone - if you make a new tag, document it!



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

[Sergio Manzi]

done!

On 2019-02-05 22:47, Richard wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:25:34PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
>> Another +1
>>
>> That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to 
>> be labeled for deletion.
>>
>> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed
> just do it.. I do not want further edit warring with the particular user but 
> if anyone contests the deletion request I think it should be just reverted.
> If anyone still wants to delete the page it can go through a deletion 
> proposal 
> procedure.
>
> Richard
>
>
> ___
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

[Richard]

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 01:25:34PM -0800, Tod Fitch wrote:
> Another +1
> 
> That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to be 
> labeled for deletion.
> 
> [1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed

just do it.. I do not want further edit warring with the particular user but 
if anyone contests the deletion request I think it should be just reverted.
If anyone still wants to delete the page it can go through a deletion proposal 
procedure.

Richard


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

[Tod Fitch]

Another +1

That wiki page [1] should be reverted back to its prime, no need for it to be 
labeled for deletion.

[1] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:amenity%3Dbikeshed

> On Feb 5, 2019, at 1:02 PM, Sergio Manzi  wrote:
> 
> +1!! :-)
> 
> On 2019-02-05 21:57, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>> Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed!  I hadn't seen it before, and
>> it's hilarious!
>> 
>> (Unless we have a rule that the Wiki shall be devoid of the least
>> indication that mappers have a sense of humour...)
> 



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

[Sergio Manzi]

+1!! :-)

On 2019-02-05 21:57, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed!  I hadn't seen it before, and
> it's hilarious!
>
> (Unless we have a rule that the Wiki shall be devoid of the least
> indication that mappers have a sense of humour...)



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Paul Allen]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:50, Kevin Kenny  wrote:

>
> The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent
> the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist.
> Someone else insists that betas are really just another kind of bees.
> A third person insists that there's no way to be certain in the field
> that what you're looking at is a beta, so the proposal should fail on
> verifiability. Another insists that before betas can be mapped, we
> need a whole taxonomy of Greek letters, and the discussion rapidly
> devolves into a long digression about whether θ and ϑ are really the
> same letter because one is printed and the other is cursive.
>

That's a very idealized description of the process.  It normally doesn't
work that well.

-- 
Paul
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 3:29 PM Richard  wrote:
> Please have look at the list of pages and raise your voice if there is 
> anything
> that doesn't appear like a clear case for deletion for you.

Oh, please bring back amenity=bikeshed!  I hadn't seen it before, and
it's hilarious!

(Unless we have a rule that the Wiki shall be devoid of the least
indication that mappers have a sense of humour...)

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Kevin Kenny]

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 2:20 PM Martin Koppenhoefer
 wrote:
> Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features 
> until they become de-facto. In use means at least one occurrence.
>
> There is also “rejected” among the possible status values, I don’t think you 
> suggest to create feature pages for rejected proposals?


As long as we indicate the status on the page, I have no trouble with
having feature pages for all of the above.

Consider the following scenario.

Mapper Mary sees a set of features in the field: call them 'betas'.
She creates a small set of OSM objects that are tagged 'alpha=beta',
because her Google-fu has failed her when trying to find any existing
tagging for betas on the map.  Following good practice, she
immediately creates a Wiki page indicating what the tag means, and
indicates that the tag is in use but not approved by the community.

Once she's got some experience with the tag (and perhaps Mapper Mike
joins her in mapping betas), she decides that betas may be of more
general interest, and floats a proposal.

The tagging mailing list discusses six alternative ways to represent
the proposed feature. Someone argues that betas don't actually exist.
Someone else insists that betas are really just another kind of bees.
A third person insists that there's no way to be certain in the field
that what you're looking at is a beta, so the proposal should fail on
verifiability. Another insists that before betas can be mapped, we
need a whole taxonomy of Greek letters, and the discussion rapidly
devolves into a long digression about whether θ and ϑ are really the
same letter because one is printed and the other is cursive.

The proposal is rejected because all the proponents of the
alternatives vote "no". Note that none of the alternatives would be
accepted as a proposal either, since, as is usual, no consensus is
achieved as to what alternative tagging should be used for the betas
that Mary and Mike have mapped. The result is that now there's a
rejected proposal without a good alternative.

What happens next? The most likely outcomes:

1. Mary and Mike remove the objects that they created, since there's
no appropriate way to tag them. They decide to do their mapping atop
some commercial platform. OSM loses them as mappers, and loses the
objects that they created.

2. Mary and Mike leave the objects in place with their invented
tagging, but remove the Wiki page that describes the tag because the
proposal was rejected. The rejected proposal page is eventually
proposed for cleanup, and winds up being removed. The objects are
'obviously' incorrectly tagged, and some other mapper, not knowing
what the situation is, either mistags or removes them.

3. Mary and Mike leave the objects in place with their invented
tagging, adding a note to the Wiki page describing the tag that a
proposal for the tag was rejected without a consensus as to
alternative tagging. Other mappers on encountering the object can look
up the 'alpha=beta' tag and see what Mary intended when she added the
objects. Perhaps someday the tag will ascend to _de facto_ status, or
someone else will manage to be persuasive enough that the proposal
will succeed.

This is a scenario in which, as far as I can tell, Mary and Mike have
done everything right, but the community has failed them. Which of
these likely outcomes is the 'least worst'?

We have a formal rule of "any tags you like", but apparently we're
converging on a _de facto_ rule of "ask permission before applying any
tag unless you see that it was the subject of a previously approved
proposal." Is that the rule we want?

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Warin]

On 06/02/19 07:23, Markus wrote:

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:

Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features until 
they become de-facto.

I think this is sensible. A tag page with 'in use' status is confusing
because it can give the impression that this tag is de facto used.



As I said - if I create a new wiki page I leave the status tag off.

Possibly there should be more status values?

'new' to cover something just created and for its first 6 months (other than 
'approved' which goes straight to 'approved')?

'caution' a tag of low use and <5 years old (other than 'approved' which goes 
straight to 'approved')?

'low use' a tag of low use and =>5 years old (other than 'approved' which goes 
straight to 'approved')?



___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] edit war about deletion of proposal

[Richard]

On Mon, Feb 04, 2019 at 01:26:03PM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Usually, they "old" proposals get archived (has 2 benefits: they will not
> be modificable any more, and it will be less easy to confuse them with
> current tag definitions).
> 
> I am interested in your opinion on this case, where 2 users (so far) are
> for the wholesale deletion, while 3 have demonstrated they would like to
> keep it in some way or the other:
> 
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/Armory=history

I think it is clear that if a deletion is contested it should go through
a delete proposal or just be kept as is.

Apart of this special case the problem is user Adamant1 marked a large number
of pages with {{delete}} without any further discussion, in addition his 
previous 
record isn't something that gives me the warm feeling of unlimited trust.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Category:Labelled_for_deletion is now
filled with about 180 requests of which some may turn out controversial.

Please have look at the list of pages and raise your voice if there is anything
that doesn't appear like a clear case for deletion for you.

Richard

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Markus]

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 20:20, Martin Koppenhoefer  wrote:
>
> Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features 
> until they become de-facto.

I think this is sensible. A tag page with 'in use' status is confusing
because it can give the impression that this tag is de facto used.

Regards

Markus

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 5. Feb 2019, at 15:35, Hufkratzer  wrote:
> 
> I don't think that a key/tag must have reached the "de-facto" limit before it 
> can have its own wiki page in the key/tag namespace, otherwise it would not 
> make sense that the templates KeyDescription and ValueDescripton allow to 
> give a key/tag the status "in use" which is less restrictive than "de facto".



Indeed I believe we shouldn’t create feature pages for “in use” features until 
they become de-facto. In use means at least one occurrence.

There is also “rejected” among the possible status values, I don’t think you 
suggest to create feature pages for rejected proposals?

Cheers, Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] motorcycle:scale

[Hufkratzer]

On 04.02.2019 13:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
[...] If the thing makes sense, sooner or later you will get the 
numbers to mark it "de-facto" even without any voting or tagging 
maliing list interactions.


Which are the numbers for "de-facto" and for "in use"? I couldn't find 
any documentation.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:ValueDescription#Usage just 
says:

-  inuse: the feature is in use
-  defacto: the tag is in widespread use, but no formal proposal process 
has taken place


See also:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q13 ("de facto")
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:Q14 ("in use")

I don't think that a key/tag must have reached the "de-facto" limit 
before it can have its own wiki page in the key/tag namespace, otherwise 
it would not make sense that the templates KeyDescription and 
ValueDescripton allow to give a key/tag the status "in use" which is 
less restrictive than "de facto".


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren geprüft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging