>> At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is >> appropriate?
> Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion > for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag. Tags > have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags > have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think. Are you saying no amount of existing tagging would convince you to consider supporting the standard rendering of landcover=trees and landcover=grass? >> At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki >> pages? > Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or > vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki. That would include landcover=*. Would that be an argument to consider supporting the standard rendering and support in mapping tools? 2018-06-08 13:55 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <o...@imagico.de>: > On Friday 08 June 2018, Peter Elderson wrote: > > Agreed, but on this list discussion is in order, right? And here I > > didn't see anyone "desiring an authorative top down tagging system - > > derailing the community processes" . > > Much of the conversation in this thread has been very dysfunctional from > my point of view with a lot of dogmatism on the side of of the 'key > systematics fraction' and insistent refusal to look outside the own > filter bubble and to accept the existence of other valid world views. > > Citing once again from Andy's earlier mail: > > > The tagging list does occasionally fall into the wiki-hole of trying > > to tell people how to map rather than communally deciding the best > > way to map something (including by looking at how people already > > do). In any situation where you're trying to suggest that "everybody > > else is wrong" you need to get over it, and OSM in particular has > > thrived where other similar projects failed simply because people can > > always find a way of expressing a particular concept - they can > > create a way of representing it themselves without a "domain expert" > > creating it for them first. There may well be a concept out there > > waiting to be mapped that needs a "landcover" tag (and it might be > > "municipal greenery"), but it's not grass or trees. > > There is a fine line between having a passionate opinion about something > and being so convinced about the righteousness of your cause that you > drift into dogmatism and intolerance. > > > At what usage level of a tag would you say a rendering proposal is > > appropriate? > > Historically absolute use numbers have not been a significant criterion > for decisions in the standard style if to render a certain tag. Tags > have been added to rendering with less than a hundred uses and tags > have been rejected with more than 100k uses i think. Of course every > maintainer is free to base decisions on any criteria they see fit. > > > At what usage level should it be documented on the wiki > > pages? > > Any tag that is deliberately used by mappers (i.e. that is not a typo or > vandalism or similar) should be documented on the wiki. > > -- > Christoph Hormann > http://www.imagico.de/ > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- Vr gr Peter Elderson
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
