From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiki Organisation

Martin Renvoize 17:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

As of 10 December 2009 we seem to have come to a conclusion upon wiki organisation. Summed up the below are the comments on this talk page which lead to this agreement;

  • We don't like Sub Page Heir-aches.
  • There are a number of different page type which need to be kept to.
  • Feature Pages - Used for complex features that are defined by multiple keys ONLY.
  • Tag Pages - Used to describe ONE tag
  • Key Pages - Used to describe ONE key, but often MANY tags spawned from THAT key.
  • Proposal Pages - Used to Propose a new feature, i.e tag, key, or value! To be organised one level out of agreed proposals.
  • The Wiki needs to be cleaned to this standard.

Martin Renvoize 11:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In relation to the first point on sub-pages, I think it's in an insane amount of work to try to eliminate all use of sub-pages throughout the wiki (not just in terms of doing it, but mainly in terms of persuading people it's a good idea) But this particular cluster of pages ("Mapping/Features/xxx") is a dramatic over-use of sub pages, as discussed below, so certainly worth tackling first.
-- Harry Wood 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, getting there slowly, I've tackled most of it, re-writing lots of pages, re-linking many, and updating all what links here pages. Still to go are the Trails page and associated links. and the Waste Management. Martin Renvoize 10:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Archived Debate

It's a good idea to have detailed pages about specific tags, but there's some wiki organisational chaos which needs sorting out here.

How does the page "Mapping/Features/Railway" relate to the page "Key:railway". Trying to do the same thing aren't they?

Currently 'Key:railway' is linked from Map Features which probably means it's more likely to get noticed, but other equivalent tags are linking into this structure.

...and others are linking under Proposed features e.g. Proposed features/Monorail is linked off the 'Map Features' page. The description which appears on a 'Proposed Features' page is also doing the same purpose (once voting has ended, and the feature is actually accepted)

What's the best page title for the purpose of describing the use of a key (or also a specific key & value)?
Do we want to use '/' in the page names (sub-pages) ?
Do we want to use ':' in the page names?
What's the best overall naming structure for these kinds of pages?

The result of these decisions will mean one or the other scheme has to go (The whole set of pages wiped away and contents merged into the other) That might cause upset, but it has to be done! ...WikiProject Cleanup. discuss here. Which scheme is best?

-- Harry Wood 16:00, 10 September 2007 (BST)

As for my opinion, I don't really like sub-pages, and especially not sub-sub-pages, because it makes the wiki page titles longer and more cumbersome to try and link to. So I think "Key:railway" is a better page title than "Mapping/Features/Railway". In fact I'd be tempted to flatten the structure even further, and just call the page "railway", but I guess I can make do with a redirect.
I do like the contents of some of these pages under Mapping/Features, and so as we move to a single more coherent naming structure, I'd suggest the contents are largely copied from here. -- Harry Wood 16:00, 10 September 2007 (BST)
I started the whole Mapping/Features hierarchy. It was not intended as a copy of either Map Features or the Key:-stuff. It is not organized by key, but by concept. It is intended for people who want to map say a parking garage. They don't know that the keys for that are amenity=parking and whatever other tags there are. They want to look under "parking garage", because that happens to be the word they have in mind and then find all the relevant information. Unfortunately these pages were always hard to find and so they are not used and updated enough. So I think these pages should be kept and be improved upon. I used the sub-page scheme here because I had intended there eventually to be many hundreds of pages for all the concepts somebody might have in mind when mapping. I didn't want to pollute the general name space with all that. -- Joto 22:22, 23 October 2007 (BST)
Ah OK yes. I see the idea of helping people find things by concepts rather than by key/value could be useful. But maybe it's better achieved as simple list. A big alphabetical list where an entry might say for example "interstate - see Tag:highway=motorway". You're kind of doing some concept mapping like this anyway. The problem I'm seeing is that there's a lot of duplication caused by having sub-pages for each concept here. It's not necessary to have a separate "concept" description "Mapping/Features/Railway" in addition to the key description "Key:railway" is it?
User:Etric Celine has made a good start, tidying up the pages with the "Key:" prefix and moving to a "Tag:" prefix for full tags (where we want a wiki page associated with a name and value) So for example we have a page "Key:highway" and a page "Tag:highway=motorway" which I think is good.
-- Harry Wood 00:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I think also good to have separated pages explaining the keys in detail and other pages explaining how to tag an "entity". But I don't agree with a prefix "Key:" and prefix "Tag:" which is quite confusing (for me, a "tag" is just a combination of a "key" and a "value"). I would prefer "Key:" pages prefix and "HowToTag:" or "HowToMap:" pages prefix. Pieren 17:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. Yes a tag is a combination of a key and value... hence page names such as "Tag:highway=motorway" make perfect sense, don't they? -- Harry Wood 14:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If a decision is made to go to Key: and Tag: pages (which I think is a good idea), do not forget to update Mapping/Adding_new_feature_to_wiki to reflect this. Incidentally, the Template:Tag now defaults to using the Key: and Tag: format so that links are created automatically. --Milliams 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Still not sure that Key: pages are correct if we speak about 'concepts' as the original intention was. It fits when the concept is covered by a key, e.g. railways by Key:railway but where is explained a concept covered by several keys ? (e.g. a port using buildings, waterways, docks, leisure=marina, etc... or the complex streets requiring highway, railway, cycleway keys) -- Pieren 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Well maybe there's one or two situations like your example "port using buildings, waterways, docks, leisure=marina", where you could make a dedicated page all about tagging the various parts of a port. This won't give you any information which you can't already find in the Tag/Key pages (the more structured "official" tagging descriptions) and typically I would expect such a page to be fairly breif, just heavily linking to specific Tags which are going to be useful.
I think we want to avoid duplicating lots of specific details of tag definitions, which would ideally be maintained in as few places as possible, and this might mean that 'concept' pages are not necessary at all (and should be avoided) where they map onto keys/tags clearly. An example of that is Mapping/Features/Railway -> Key:railway
In the cases where we *do* want to create a concept page. e.g. talking about tagging ports. How should this page be named in the wiki? I would go for something simple like [[Tagging Ports]] or just [[Ports]]. As I said, I don't really like sub-pages, and especially not sub-sub-pages, because it makes the wiki page titles longer and more cumbersome to try and link to.
...but I also think there is only a need for (or interest in creating) 'concept' pages in a small number of situations, and that these will defer to the tag/key pages for detailed definitions. All other concept mappings could be created in the form of redirects, for example Playground and play area wiki redirect to Tag:leisure=playground.
-- Harry Wood 10:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus that generally we should have a redirect from a 'concept' page to a tag page, where there's a good 1-to-1 match between them. Where there is a good reason for having a separate concept page (for instance, a concept where there are multiple applicable tags, like Railways), then the page should simply be named after the concept, rather than having any prefix or being a sub-page of Map Features. This is pretty much the current situation anyway. Frankie Roberto 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, so lets get on this it now. I also propose that we rename the Mapping/Features page as 'Feature index' and build it up to be just that in a more comprehensive way. It will normally link to the concept page if there is one and to the tag page if not, possibly via a redirect. PeterIto 02:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. 'Feature index' could be good --Harry Wood 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm So what actually happened since this old discussion above, is that we've created a Railways page in addition to the Mapping/Features/Railway page rather than moving it. *sigh* -- Harry Wood 15:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is getting silly. Being Bold and making a start on this, first thing, merge the two Railways pages. Second step, going to try and get all the pages listed here using the "feature" template, if they fit. Finally, redirect this page to the category as a "features index"? Sound like a plan? Martin Renvoize 23:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Good work! -- Harry Wood 16:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)