Hi, Le lun. 13 févr. 2023 à 14:11, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> a écrit :
> > By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution rates and be > criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or established tagging. > > An actual example would be really useful here. > Here are some, very specific tagging but whatever: * Back to 2013, replacing power=station and power=sub_station by power=substation and power=plant Respectively 40000 + 110000 in 5 years (30k/year) versus 500000 + 70000 in 8 years (71k/year) => x2.3 * In 2018, replacement of voltage-high/voltage-low by voltage:primary/voltage:secondary Respectively 6200 + 4600 in 8 years (1350/year) versus 110000+95000 in 5 years (41k/year) => x30 * In 2021, replacement of tower:type=branch by line_management=branch or split or cross Respectively 3600 in 7 years (515/year) versus 22030 in 2 years (11k/year) => x21 This is not the only indicator to look at and many problems remain to be solved regarding this tagging. But practice establishment is no barrier with good documentation and encouragement, especially when changes occur every few years. And it's not for blaming anyone who defined how things were at first, we'd better begin with something even incomplete and improve it continuously. > > Establishment nor longstanding practices shouldn't be valid reasons on > their own to justify decision making about tagging. > > Indeed - if a proposal (even a reorganisation of existing usage) allows > better information to be collected then it makes sense to do it. The > "diplomatic" reorganisation was one such (though the implementation was > botched). In this case, I'm not convinced that this proposal has any > benefit. We have edge cases now; after this proposal we will still have a > whole bunch of slightly different edge cases. > I completely agree about edge cases and it's a way better red flag to investigate. It's not about longstanding practices. Inconsistencies and edge cases can occur with even 2 month of experience on a given tagging scheme. > > How about considering tagging as an independent valuable thing we should > take care of as well? > > Because it isn't? It's literally just describing how things are stored > within OSM. Anyone coming to OpenStreetMap as a mapper for the first time > won't see tags at all - their editor will look after that for them. A data > consumer will have a simplified view of the world and will have to map OSM > concepts into the ones that they are interested in. > it's not as strong as I think it should. We are still arguing on no deprecating and longstanding practices while it can be perfectly valuable with appropriate documentation. Tagging we collectively build there is usable both inside and outside of OSM (up to anyone and with all due risks as it is provided as this with no liability). Many businesses sell databases with a price based upon the data they contain, not their structure. OSM has got a pretty unique 360° semantic space and it is valuable on its own (not sold, not my point). This value comes from diversity, continuous improvement and documentation, not from longstanding practices. Regarding the valuable point you make on tagging meta data making osm tags invisible for common users, I wonder why we are busy with writing readable proposals and then stuck on updating manually every toolchain with the same information. and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary upheaval > We have no framework to count benefits, no feedback on experience and some upheaval still exist by design. It's not fair. In a nutshell, there is many room for tagging management improvement and we should fill it... or endlessly spend energy about changes we can't handle. Best regards François Le lun. 13 févr. 2023 à 14:11, Andy Townsend <ajt1...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution rates and be > criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or established tagging. > > An actual example would be really useful here. > > > Establishment nor longstanding practices shouldn't be valid reasons on > their own to justify decision making about tagging. > > Indeed - if a proposal (even a reorganisation of existing usage) allows > better information to be collected then it makes sense to do it. The > "diplomatic" reorganisation was one such (though the implementation was > botched). In this case, I'm not convinced that this proposal has any > benefit. We have edge cases now; after this proposal we will still have a > whole bunch of slightly different edge cases. > > > How about considering tagging as an independent valuable thing we should > take care of as well? > > Because it isn't? It's literally just describing how things are stored > within OSM. Anyone coming to OpenStreetMap as a mapper for the first time > won't see tags at all - their editor will look after that for them. A data > consumer will have a simplified view of the world and will have to map OSM > concepts into the ones that they are interested in. > > As a concrete example, here: > > > https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L6003 > > is where I take a bunch of things from OSM and map them into a concept > that is displayed on a map ("Variety Stores", shown with a "£" symbol**). > A map for a different platform, here: > > > https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/mkgmap_style_ajt/blob/master/transform_03.lua#L1760 > > has a mapping onto a different category, "General Stores". This is > because this map is for Garmin devices which (by default) have a hardcoded > series of categories that the search menus know about, and "Variety Stores" > isn't one of them, but "General Stores" is. > > Almost no-one in the outside world is going to want to distinguish between > the actual OSM values here; they're only interested in their own real-world > concepts. In many cases this may be much broader-brush, perhaps "shops > that sell food" vs "shows that primarily sell non-food", or even just > "shops". > > Anyone suggesting widespread changes such as this needs to explain how > this proposal will help with at least one of the following: > > - Allowing new mappers to contribute to OSM easier than they currently > can > - Allowing some nuance to be captured that can't be captured now > - Make life easier for data consumers in some way > > and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary upheaval (which > in this case would be significant). Note that "satisfying the data > normalisation urges of people familiar with working with databases" isn't > on that list. > > Best Regards, > > Andy > > ** apologies to anyone with a pocketful of € instead of £ > > > On 13/02/2023 12:21, François Lacombe wrote: > > Hello > > Le ven. 10 févr. 2023 à 19:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < > tagging@openstreetmap.org> a écrit : > >> Or to be more specific solved problems, if any, are much smaller than >> size >> of change of longstanding tagging practices. >> > > To me, it's a return of experience matter and a debate we should provide > with facts. > OSM has been created to question longstanding practices, how the same can > be raised to prevent its own evolution nowadays? > > Many attempts to change longstanding practices in the past had unleashed > contribution and bring more visibility on covered topics. > I made a presentation at SOTM France last year about what benefits tagging > development brings to OSM. > Studying chronology tabs on taginfo learn us a lot about how the community > reacts with such changing, despite changes may be slow or significant. > > The methodology and efforts deployed to achieve the rollout of new tagging > should be adapted in regard of amounts of features to retag, yes (and we > will never be perfect from that perspective). > By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution rates and be > criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or established tagging. > Establishment nor longstanding practices shoudn't be valid reasons on > their own to justify decision making about tagging. > > How about considering tagging as an independent valuable thing we should > take care of as well? > > Best regards > > François > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing > listTagging@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
