There are times and places when / where "keeping plural tagging schemes" is a smarter method to interpret OSM's data. (Many, in fact). Saying "this how we should map" (being 'prescriptive') is not the same as wishful thinking. Being 'descriptive' and saying "this is how we do map" (as we quote taginfo) is (rather) simply looking at existing data in a particular way.
We're smart. We're people. Let's stay smart and be smart. Tagging evolves, tagging has legacies. We must live with this seeming dichotomy and manage it simultaneously. Mechanical consumers of OSM's data do get smarter, too. (Though I don't think the machine learning is anywhere near sentient!) These (railway stations) are nodes, these are polygons. These have many methods of interpreting them, so interpret them. We might (I think we do) improve them as they evolve. There are good methods for these to evolve, here's the good news: this happens, as co-operation and consensus work. Ask yourself: how many simultaneous (on the planet) "methods" must I imagine these things in the real world today (highways, railways, bike routes, PT routes, boundaries...) in OSM? Two? Four? Six? Eight? It's more than one, for sure, and that's OK. That's OSM. We have newer data and methods and older data and methods simultaneously, it does get better. There are seldom magic bullets, it often takes work for these things to evolve. Yet, they do. Work it out, we can. SteveA _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
