On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Russ Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > Andy Allan writes: > > can win, and I decided about 6 months ago to ignore (or at least not > > rise to) the eternally pointless tagging debate. > > The reason it's eternal is because there's no one to choose.
surely it has more to do with different people having different opinions? > Steve > refuses to do it because too many people give him hell when he does, > and nobody defends him for doing it. Fine. I'm officially defending > his right to say "This is the SteveC(tm) compliant way of tagging." > without catching grief from people with more time to argue than edit. i absolutely agree. i'd also defend frederik's right to say "this is the Frederik Ramm approved tagging scheme" without catching grief, or andy to say it's the One True Gravitystorm way, etc... etc... > I'm fine with anarchy; I'm an anarchist. But chaos is not appealing > to me, otherwise I'd move to Somalia. you're fine with anarchy, but you'd like an organisational method of resolving arguments? anarchy + rules? free-form tagging was genius, but it was based on the idea that these "folksonomies" (urgh, i hate that word) naturally converge by people using them, tools consuming them and the feedback loops that creates. we need to be strengthening those processes - not defining rules, elevating adjudicators or otherwise compromising the original awesome genius of free-form tagging. cheers, matt PS: i resisted as long as i could. penance: http://imgur.com/paLI8.png _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
