UK tagging guidelines
I wonder why you keep changing this page to describe an approach to tagging which is rarely used in the UK. The objective of the wiki is to describe how things are in the OSM database, and contrary to the views of many, not a means to impose your opinions on every one else. Repeated changes to this page only serve to confuse people and probably discourages contributions to OSM. Please bear this in mind. SK53 19:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I would disagree that I am imposing my opinions as both methods are equally mentioned. The previous articles barley mentioned the 'new' method and where it did it was often contradictory. Discussions on the matter were circular, inconclusive and old. Therefore the only conclusion is that the issue is currently inconclusive... therefore both methods deserve equal mention until such time that it can be concluded.
The newer method is always going to be rarely used if the article doesn't mention it. These are all approved methods of tagging and deserve a mention without bias for the user to decide.
The matter was stale and needed some definitive outlining. As a relative newcomer myself I was becoming disheartened by petty bickering, confusing, contradictory content and the lack of any progression on the subject.
I agree that repeated changes could prove confusing to some, particularly when they are back and forth, but as a user I would rather see progress than outdated inconsistencies with long drawn out discussions that go nowhere. As long as it remains factual and concise then repeated changes will not be needed.
The wiki as a whole is in dire need of a clean up if we wish to encourage contributions. I found that as a newcomer I was spending more and more time trying to fish the facts out of the wiki and still being left confused on particular issues which is why I chose to step up and push this issue forward as I could not see any evidence of progression. --Bobious 23:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think you are discovering what many of us have done: the wiki is not a good source of information on tagging. Consequently many of the most active mappers spend little time on the wiki. The two best means of discovering how a tag is used are a) find an area you know which is well mapped and where the tagging seems sensible; and b) look to see how tags are used in aggregate using taginfo, tagwatch and other similar tools (e.g., ITO's OSM Mapper). There are also good books about OSM written by people who really know what they are talking about (Topf, Ramm & Chilton; Bennett). These approaches tend to show a much more consistent view of how things might be done than the wiki, which tends to be over exposed to personal hobby horses. From my perspective the designated/designation styles of tagging were two choices about 18 months ago, but I soon found that adding one tag was much easier and more likely to be accurate than trying to remember a combination. I suspect that most other people tagging rights of way either understood the difference immediately or made the same discovery I did. Which was probably why no-one then bothered to follow through on the wiki. The project is about making a map, not maintaining a wiki. One last point, its better to build a copy of a page in a personal sandbox and asking people to have a look via talk-gb or IRC before making big changes. SK53 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Some good points raised there. It's the newcomers that go to the wiki so if the wiki is not a good source of information then the wiki itself should reflect this right from the first entry point (maybe it does already but it can't be clear enough if so many people are falling in the same hole).
The method of viewing the data to get tagging advice is unworkable on its own - example: a previously unmarked cycle path near me splits off with the surface changing to to a bumpy and dusty gravel like surface that i wouldn't ride my road bike down but would on my mountain bike. I wanted to reflect this in the data so i could have different routable maps depending on which bike i choose to ride. Without an article explaining a consensus of the surface tags to use i would have had to find a path with a similar surface and see what that is tagged with, but i don't know of any other path with those exact characteristics.
The tag watch method i had to find on my own and should be clearer to new users and mentioned at the entry points of the wiki.
You say that the project is about making a map, not maintaining a wiki but surely they are intrinsically linked. If the wiki is unmaintained, misleading, inaccurate or just full of wiki wars then the map data will suffer as new users come in. The only conclusion i can draw right now is a) the wiki be deleted or b) only privileged users can edit it as the current method is obviously not workable.
All i know is that i can't bear to just let it stand as it is as it is bad for the project as a whole.