I completely agree the "how to map" of OpenStreetMap (not just tags, but also things like when to split a highway, when to snap nodes, what should be mapped etc) is full of "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness". But when I look at where OSM is today I think we've done a pretty amazing job all things considered, yes we still have much more work to do, but being a mostly volunteer self organising community the best way to make OSM stronger is hands on driving this change.
I think the easiest way to get started is improving documentation on the wiki, documenting all the different "how to map" concepts used today, documenting these "inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness", then as a community we can refine approaches to eventually resolve these issues. There's a lot of precedent in OSM for deprecating things when we have better/more commonly used. Any time you encounter an inconsistencies I'd encourage you to raise it, either on the globally tagging list, or if it's local here on talk-au. On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 at 09:57, Herbert.Remi via Talk-au < talk-au@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > A special thank you for the links yesterday. I have read them. "Australian > Tagging Guidelines" and "Good practice" are worth knowing and I am very > grateful for our forefathers that put so much effort into writing these > documents. It worth noting, however, when you compared the two that they > are riddled with inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness. It is worth > remembering this when we experience another of those "I am right, you are > wrong" conversations. > Reading "Australian Tagging Guidelines," I thought of Geffory Rush from > Pirates of the Carribean, "they are more guidelines than rules." Unapproved > tracktypes for 4WD (inventing tags, don't exist but perhaps they should) > and small towns called cities so they appear the map (mapping for the > renderer), and the principle of "we map what is there" but then don't map > what is private (often difficult to verify too). The descriptions are full > of contradictions and vagueness. The "Lifecycle prefix" wikitext needs more > work, particularly examples of use to get consistency in its application. > As much of it is not rendered (Mapnik), mapping it could be considered as a > low priority. > Harry Wood's blog "community smoothness" addresses vagueness in language > and how everybody has a different opinion of what a text means. That is not > new of course and with certainty, everybody has an opinion about what the > right way is. It is human nature, when it comes to our own beliefs, every > evidence supporting it is embraced and every evidence against excluded. > Finally, it is easy to forget that the Wiki is written in dozens of > different languages and there will be inconsistencies between Wiki entries > in different languages. I can verify that for two. English and German wiki > pages descriptions are not surprisingly culture-specific (see also the > chemist/pharmacy/drug store discussion for AU/UK/US comparison). > Despite our best efforts inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and vagueness > will reign in the OSM anarchy. > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
