@Skippern: “A vote though might be useful indicator when changes to an existing tag are suggested.” That’s a very good point and I agree with you. If we need - for whatever reason - change the meaning of an already existing and used tag, we should vote on it. But in my opinion the current voting process is not suited for this, because we might reach only a very limited audience.

@gileri: Please stop putting words in my mouth I never said.

@Warin: Regarding the radio telescopes: there is no “officially approved”. Do you really think, that a tag, that is used twice (once in Australia and once in Africa) will be supported by any consumer just because it is “approved”? If you want your tag to be supported, then do just that: support it! Talk with the mappers in Africa. Can both tags be used simultaneously? If yes, do so! You want it rendered? Did you write some documentation? Did you open a ticket with your favourite renderer? Did you prepare an image for the renderer? There is a lot more meaningful to do rather than putting an “Approved” on a wiki page.

@gileri: There are some problems with “well-defined tags”.

1. Who decides what well-defined is and what not? Are those voting really the ones, who are most experienced with some specific topic?
2. What if “well-defined” means complex? What do you do if your perfect tagging scheme is so complex, that no one is able to use it? Many mappers never read the wiki. If something isn’t obvious it is usually deemed to fail. OSM is not a closed environment. People are not paid for and one can not tell them what to do and what not. So if something is too complex to use, people start describing the feature as they understand it. It might not be well defined, it might be a horror to use for any consumer, but it is still valid data. And one single node with ill-defined data is still more data than zero nodes with perfect, well defined tags. And that is why taginfo wins over so called “well-defined” tags - gladly and not sadly!

@pnorman: “The part of proposing a new tag that has value is explaining it to others.” VERY TRUE!

@chilly: Thanks for your comment. Regarding wiki fiddlers and documentation I want to add one more remark: Why do we need a status for a key? Why is it necessary to get a glowing-green “Approved” on a wiki page? Why is “Rejected” hellish-red? Those details support the impression, that only good, green, approved tags should be used, that they are official tags. This is not true and we should start with removing the status from the wiki. The usage numbers from taginfo are all we need.

@Richard: You are right. I took a short cut there when writing as it got already too long.

In my opinion, the pressure comes from the consumers, but not only directly but also indirectly. Indirectly by - as you call them - tidy-minded people, who want something supported, so they write something, force a vote and then expect instantly all consumers world wide to support this, especially after they added those three nodes with the new tag in their home town. And the consumers HAVE TO support it: it is approved!!!somemoreexclamationmarks!!

Some issues here: * Are you sure that Carrer Callueta is a one-way? * I think you mixed names and features: Is the name of the parking space in the bottom right corner really “public parking”? Is the beach volleyball pitch really called “Beach Volleyball public”? A petrol station called “fuel”? A tyre dealer called “tires”? A look at google’s streetview (which can NOT be used a source) also tells me, that the “Clothing Shop” is definitively not called “Clothing Shop” nor am I able to find a “Paint Shop”. And McDonald’s is - well - not a playground.

Please don’t use the key name to describe a feature.

I’m not quite sure what you need destination:ref:to for? If it should be the reference of the highway this (i.e. the first) highway is heading to, then you should be able to derive this information from the data already.

A short question regarding Mapillary: I tried it in Switzerland and more or less all signposts are pixelated like all license tags. License tags have to be pixelated, but why signposts? Or is it just a bug?