iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
96 messages Options
12345
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Jmapb
On 5/23/2019 12:26 PM, Nick Bolten wrote:
> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
> restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should
> reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
>
> Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit
> platform is not a footway?

This reads like a trick question.

- "All platforms are, in some sense, footways."
- "So we should tag them as footways!"

or

- "Here's an example of a weird platform that certainly isn't a footway!"
- "Aha, interesting! Clearly this shows the necessity of tagging the
*other* 100,000 platforms as footways, to show the difference!"

J


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

marc marc
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
Le 23.05.19 à 18:26, Nick Bolten a écrit :
> I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret
> existing platforms without the tag added by iD.

without explicit value, it is impossible to say whether the platforms
is a public path, a public footway, or none of them.

improving this situation would be :

in a editor :
- if a highway crosses the polygon of a platform in the wanted
direction, don't ask for access on it, use that highway
- otherwise, editor can ask the user: does a sign restrict access?
if so, enter the value access
- otherwise, do not add anything to osm, don't map the legislation
on each osm object !

for data consumer :
- use a default value depending on the country (in some countries you
can walk, in other countries you can walk with a dismounted bike,
in others you can stay on your bike)
- a good well formated wiki page and/or a type=default relation help
to have access to the data need for a preprocessor.
- pooling contributions/code/rules to make a preprocessor that add
in legislation on osm objects of a pdb could make sense

Regards,
Marc
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Jo-2
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
a platform, whether tagged as public_transport=platform, highway=platform or railway=platform is always accessible and routeable for pedestrians. So no need to explicitly tag them with highway=footway or foot=yes or something of that nature.

Polyglot

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 6:28 PM Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.

Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit platform is not a footway?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
I agree that adding highway=footway to platforms is not only
redundant, but (as pointed out by Michael) is bad because platforms
often have different access restrictions than highway=footway. iD's
validation rule should be removed.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ID is not a king and final arbiter of OSM

marc marc
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
Le 23.05.19 à 18:32, Tobias Zwick a écrit :
> what would it take to reverse this?

what may help in to keep some thread here on topic and make a summary at
the end of a long thread... or maybe always made a summary like
subject : [solved] previous subject
a short summary

I am even someone who writes messages that are too long. so I understand
that not everyone necessarily wants or has the time to read the hundreds
of messages on some topics spread over several months

the last problem is that some dev (but also some users of a publisher)
have to accept that sometimes discussing a problem will not be done in a
few hours.
a community project does not have the same tempo as managing a bug by
deciding on its own
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
"Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about this like this:

A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop (platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain properties, for example, they are accessible both by pedestrians, but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably should.

Tobias

On 23/05/2019 18:26, Nick Bolten wrote:

> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
>
> Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit platform is not a footway?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I agree that adding highway=footway to platforms is not only
>     redundant, but (as pointed out by Michael) is bad because platforms
>     often have different access restrictions than highway=footway. iD's
>     validation rule should be removed.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Markus
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Andy Townsend
On 23/05/2019 17:45, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> "Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about this like this:
>
> A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop (platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain properties, for example, they are accessible both by pedestrians, but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
> Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably should.
>
That's an excellent summary.  I can think of a few railway platforms
that also form part of footpath routes, but must do not.  Having an
editor automatically add "highway=footway" to all platforms devalues the
work of all those who've used the tag explicitly in the past.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Jmapb
That's not an example of a trick question, just a normal question with clear implications. I'd be happy to see examples of linear platform features that aren't footways and have my intuition proven incorrect.

Are there any other outdoor linear features with primary pedestrian access that aren't footways?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:35 AM Jmapb <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 5/23/2019 12:26 PM, Nick Bolten wrote:
> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's
> redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address
> restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should
> reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
>
> Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit
> platform is not a footway?

This reads like a trick question.

- "All platforms are, in some sense, footways."
- "So we should tag them as footways!"

or

- "Here's an example of a weird platform that certainly isn't a footway!"
- "Aha, interesting! Clearly this shows the necessity of tagging the
*other* 100,000 platforms as footways, to show the difference!"

J


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
So would it be fair to say that a linear *=platform implies foot=yes and can be tagged with reasonable tags for a footway such as width, incline, surface, tactile paving, etc?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:46 AM Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> wrote:
"Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about this like this:

A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop (platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain properties, for example, they are accessible both by pedestrians, but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably should.

Tobias

On 23/05/2019 18:26, Nick Bolten wrote:
> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
>
> Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit platform is not a footway?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     I agree that adding highway=footway to platforms is not only
>     redundant, but (as pointed out by Michael) is bad because platforms
>     often have different access restrictions than highway=footway. iD's
>     validation rule should be removed.
>
>     Regards
>
>     Markus
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
The only coherent rule I can surmise based on how footways are mapped "in the wild" is that it's an outdoor linear feature and it's primarily intended for pedestrians. Linear transit platforms people walk to, from, and on seem to fit the other uses of the tag, hence my questions.

The rendering example posted earlier is a good example where it seems an awful lot like a footway and a platform at the same time. Perhaps the platform should be a polygon and the path to and on it a footway?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:56 AM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/05/2019 17:45, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> "Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about this like this:
>
> A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop (platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain properties, for example, they are accessible both by pedestrians, but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
> Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably should.
>
That's an excellent summary.  I can think of a few railway platforms
that also form part of footpath routes, but must do not.  Having an
editor automatically add "highway=footway" to all platforms devalues the
work of all those who've used the tag explicitly in the past.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ID is not a king and final arbiter of OSM

Jmapb
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
On 5/23/2019 12:32 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote:
> Undoubtedly, the developers behavior is not helping there. I have the impression that they have almost given up on the OSM community. But this doesn't come out of nowhere.  I think it is important to understand their side of the story if we were to reverse this development.

Would anyone care to summarize the developers' side of the story? Maybe,
I dunno, one of the iD developers?

J

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Markus-5
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:28, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.

Please excuse the bad wording. I meant that even if platforms had the
same access restrictions as footways, they should not additionally be
tagged highway=footway, because this were redundant. But as platforms
often have different access restrictions (e.g. you cannot enter w/o a
ticket), adding highway=footway is conflicting.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
I'd say so.

On 23/05/2019 19:03, Nick Bolten wrote:

> So would it be fair to say that a linear *=platform implies foot=yes and can be tagged with reasonable tags for a footway such as width, incline, surface, tactile paving, etc?
>
> On Thu, May 23, 2019, 9:46 AM Tobias Zwick <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     "Redundant" is perhaps not the best way to describe the problem. I'd go about this like this:
>
>     A "highway=footway" is a footway, a "public_transport=platform" is a bus stop (platform). These are simply two different things. They *share* certain properties, for example, they are accessible both by pedestrians, but that does not make a bus stop platform a footway.
>     Giving an extreme example: Paved brownfields and parking lots are not footways. But following the argument of the iD developers, they probably should.
>
>     Tobias
>
>     On 23/05/2019 18:26, Nick Bolten wrote:
>     > I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.
>     >
>     > Taking a step back, can anyone name an instance where a linear transit platform is not a footway?
>     >
>     > On Thu, May 23, 2019, 12:49 AM Markus <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >     I agree that adding highway=footway to platforms is not only
>     >     redundant, but (as pointed out by Michael) is bad because platforms
>     >     often have different access restrictions than highway=footway. iD's
>     >     validation rule should be removed.
>     >
>     >     Regards
>     >
>     >     Markus
>     >
>     >     _______________________________________________
>     >     Tagging mailing list
>     >     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]> <mailto:[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>>
>     >     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Tagging mailing list
>     > [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>     >
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Markus-5
Ah, I see! That all makes sense.

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:42 AM Markus <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2019 at 18:28, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I'm confused, because these two statements seem incompatible. If it's redundant, how can it also have a conflict like different address restrictions? I'd like to know how, as a data consumer, I should reliably interpret existing platforms without the tag added by iD.

Please excuse the bad wording. I meant that even if platforms had the
same access restrictions as footways, they should not additionally be
tagged highway=footway, because this were redundant. But as platforms
often have different access restrictions (e.g. you cannot enter w/o a
ticket), adding highway=footway is conflicting.

Regards

Markus

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Allroads
In reply to this post by Michael Reichert-3
For me it is highway=platform, ID, is doing it wrong.
 
In a discussion, I drawn out a visualisation.
 
 
Allroads.
 
 

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Nick Bolten
That segment of platform by the bus shelter is both a footway and a platform. In many scenarios, the "platform" might be distinguished by nothing but some paint on a curb - clearly it's just a part of the sidewalk where a bus stops. 

We shouldn't ask mappers to decide how platform-ie or footway-ie that segment of infrastructure is and only choose one based on subjective priorities: they should be able to clearly describe both simultaneously.

highway=platform effectively rules out highway=footway, hence the conflict.

I have never seen *=platform features consumed for any purpose other than being a destination in routing software. Does anyone have examples of other use cases?

On Thu, May 23, 2019, 10:50 AM Allroads <[hidden email]> wrote:
For me it is highway=platform, ID, is doing it wrong.
 
In a discussion, I drawn out a visualisation.
 
 
Allroads.
 
 
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: ID is not a king and final arbiter of OSM

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Jmapb
If they'd wanted to do that the github thread wouldn't have been locked.

He's never been good at taking criticism.

He confesses *all* responses will be critical, but still thinks he's right.

DaveF

On 23/05/2019 18:26, Jmapb wrote:

> On 5/23/2019 12:32 PM, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>> Undoubtedly, the developers behavior is not helping there. I have the
>> impression that they have almost given up on the OSM community. But
>> this doesn't come out of nowhere.  I think it is important to
>> understand their side of the story if we were to reverse this
>> development.
>
> Would anyone care to summarize the developers' side of the story? Maybe,
> I dunno, one of the iD developers?
>
> J
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: iD adding highway=footway to all railway/public_transport=platform ways and relations

Tagging mailing list
In reply to this post by Allroads
Please see the discussion on the Transit forum.
Platform should only be tagged when their is a *physical* object of a raise platform, not just an imaginary area of pavement. 

From OSM's Welcome page:
"OpenStreetMap is a place for mapping things that are both real and current "
"What it doesn't include is...  hypothetical features"

There is a call to greatly simplify the ever expanding, confusing public transport schema. This ID proposal only muddies the waters further.

DaveF

On 23/05/2019 18:49, Allroads wrote:
For me it is highway=platform, ID, is doing it wrong.

In a discussion, I drawn out a visualisation.

https://i.postimg.cc/wxJcG6bH/bushaltehaltekominvulling1.png

Allroads.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Mateusz Konieczny-3
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
23 May 2019, 18:32 by [hidden email]:
reverse this development.
Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it
would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid
what I realized after sending the message).
I had to rewrite this last paragraph several times, but, well, I hope this does not come across the wrong way...
it can certainly not continue like this, so ... why not interview him, honestly and with open outcome, how should the collaboration and communication in OSM happen in the future from his point of view? Would he rather feel relieved or rather feel betrayed if the gatekeeping (~deployment) is done by other people? Does he really feel alienated (because I assumed it) from the community and if yes, why? And most importantly, what would it take to reverse this?
+1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that,
and not already involved in a poor way

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Valor Naram
> +1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that, and not already involved in a poor way

I can do that but I am not quite sure about my social skills. But I will take it seriously as I always do when I am moderating or organising.

Cheers

Sören alias Valor Naram


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Tagging] solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)
From: Mateusz Konieczny
To:
CC: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools"


23 May 2019, 18:32 by [hidden email]:
reverse this development.
Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it
would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid
what I realized after sending the message).
I had to rewrite this last paragraph several times, but, well, I hope this does not come across the wrong way...
it can certainly not continue like this, so ... why not interview him, honestly and with open outcome, how should the collaboration and communication in OSM happen in the future from his point of view? Would he rather feel relieved or rather feel betrayed if the gatekeeping (~deployment) is done by other people? Does he really feel alienated (because I assumed it) from the community and if yes, why? And most importantly, what would it take to reverse this?
+1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that,
and not already involved in a poor way

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: solving iD conflict (was: pointlessly inflamatory title)

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Mateusz Konieczny-3
> Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid what I realized after sending the message).

OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could not be more stark:

# My experiences with OSMers in other contexts:
- Very friendly, all focused on making maps better, highly motivated to donate their time to help others via the map.
- Disagreements are pleasant. Both sides acknowledge the other point of view and usually come around to a compromise.
- There is interest in knowing more: lots of questions back and forth.
- Objections are qualified and polite.
- 10s-100s of people giving feedback on a single idea.

# My experience with this mailing list:
- Quick to exasperate.
- You will be assumed to be coming to the table in bad faith.
- You will probably be insulted at some point, potentially sworn at.
- The same 8 or so people respond to posts out of a community of tens of thousands of people, companies, non-profits, etc.
- The odd situation of absolute certainty in completely incompatible opinions from those that do respond.
- Difficult for people to discover. How do we know that the opinions shared here are in any way representative of the community, given that so few discover + participate in it?
- Difficult to filter for relevance. Have to set up email filters and/or specialized search queries.
- Zero real synchronization with OSM editors, the only way people add data to the map. Blame doled out everywhere, but very little in the way of collaboration, no real venue for doing so (see previous bullet points).

Focusing on the idea of being an "arbiter", does that sound like a good way to figure out which tags are good/acceptable?

When I was mentoring a group of students a few years ago, several were offended by the condescending and insulting responses they received on this mailing list, all because they suggested making a coherent way of combining existing tags into a pedestrian schema and doing a carefully-vetted import. The import was so carefully-vetted that we later realized it wasn't even really an import, but this didn't stop there being several insulting accusations from several long-term OSMers on these lists. Those students were motivated by helping other people and spent literal months attempting to gather enough information from underspecified tagging standards and would have been put off the community entirely if it weren't for the project's momentum and much more productive and friendly interactions with local OSMers. I think it's probably a good thing that it's so hard to even know that there is a mailing list, as users have a negative experience.

To boot, there are technical problems solved by virtually every other messaging system:
- Difficult to discover.
- Virtually impossible for new users to join recent discussions - they need to have subscribed to the list first.
- Discovering old discussions is difficult, requires some nerdy prowess.
- Terrible security practices. Passwords sent in plain text over email. No encryption. I was almost put off the mailing list entirely when I saw this. Completely unacceptable.

Gripes aside, I have a suggestion: move these discussions to a real forum system, properly organized around regional/topic-specific/tagging discussions. It could be a revamped https://forum.openstreetmap.org/ or something fancier and slack-like (like riot chat). Have actual moderators and code of conduct. The current mode of communication is systematically flawed.

On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:06 PM Mateusz Konieczny <[hidden email]> wrote:
23 May 2019, 18:32 by [hidden email]:
reverse this development.
Yes, it would be great. There is plenty of negative emotion on both sides and it
would be great to reverse this (for example title that I used was frankly stupid
what I realized after sending the message).
I had to rewrite this last paragraph several times, but, well, I hope this does not come across the wrong way...
it can certainly not continue like this, so ... why not interview him, honestly and with open outcome, how should the collaboration and communication in OSM happen in the future from his point of view? Would he rather feel relieved or rather feel betrayed if the gatekeeping (~deployment) is done by other people? Does he really feel alienated (because I assumed it) from the community and if yes, why? And most importantly, what would it take to reverse this?
+1, though it would be tricky to find someone both interested in doing this, with time to do that,
and not already involved in a poor way
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12345