{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630/events","html_url":"https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630","id":92864405,"number":1630,"title":"Guidelines for adding new features","user":{"login":"gravitystorm","id":360803,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/360803?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm","html_url":"https://github.com/gravitystorm","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gravitystorm/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":4,"created_at":"2015-07-03T12:23:56Z","updated_at":"2015-07-03T17:32:45Z","closed_at":null,"body":"In a different issue @kocio-pl says:\r\n\r\n\"AFAIK there are currently no policy on the amount of tag uses yet. It's just a matter of individual taste and feeling.\"\r\n\r\nI don't want thinks to be unpredictable, so we should come to a collective decision rather than it depending one individual taste. But it's a tricky subject, and causes a huge amount of bad feelings, since every mapper wants every tag to show up somewhere, and unfortunately for us, that somewhere is almost always here.\r\n\r\nI have two guidelines that I'd like to see implemented:\r\n\r\n* For every new feature added, (at least) one feature is removed\r\n* For any feature to be considered for this style, it must already be on one other osm.org front-page style\r\n\r\nBasically, numbers-of-features based rules aren't usable. Just because there are millions of X doesn't mean we should put them on this map style. And just because only a few hundred Y have been mapped doesn't make them unsuitable.\r\n\r\nWhen it comes to adding new things - well, there are roughly hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of different \"things\" in OpenStreetMap and they almost all could be added to this style. If we add things and don't remove things, then the map style will show hundreds of thousands of different things, and that's not tenable. It stops being a map and is just a complex, unreadable, useless and ugly visualisation of the database. So we need to have a plan to remove things if we keep adding more and more. I know people disagree with me here, and claim that there's no downside to adding more features (or new features won't be drawn in the same place as existing ones, or can't see the problem with having millions of different icons) but they are wrong. And the way we are doing it at the moment - where we add new features every week since \"one or two more can't hurt\" is unsustainable.\r\n\r\nFor the second point, if a feature is so obscure that no other rendering - even including specialist renderings - contain that feature, then I think it's inappropriate to add it to a general style. It should be the case that the main map style is a good summary of the data available, and then if you want to see more information on a topic, you can switch to another, perhaps specialist, map. Having features appearing only on the general style and not elsewhere is completely back-to-front.\r\n\r\nOther proposals are, of course, welcome!"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/comments/118397872","html_url":"https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630#issuecomment-118397872","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/1630","id":118397872,"user":{"login":"dieterdreist","id":581288,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/581288?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist","html_url":"https://github.com/dieterdreist","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dieterdreist/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-07-03T17:32:45Z","updated_at":"2015-07-03T17:32:45Z","body":"2015-07-03 16:01 GMT+02:00 Christoph Hormann <notifications@github.com>:\n\n>\n>    - For every new feature added, (at least) one feature is removed\n>    - For any feature to be considered for this style, it must already be\n>    on one other osm.org front-page style\n>\n>  I would be for following the first - not necessarily in a strict 'quid\n> pro quo' sense but strongly suggesting that anyone who suggests or creates\n> PRs for adding new features should also make similar contributions w.r.t.\n> removing.\n>\n\n\n+1, sounds reasonable. Making the removal a hard requirement might lead to\nnonsense for the sake of following the rules.\n\nBut i would be strictly against the second. This is a typical 'preserving\n> the status quo for the sake of conservation itself' rule. Innovation and\n> progress need to start somewhere and since the standard style is the only\n> one that is based on at least partly democratic control and does not have a\n> strict thematic focus this rule - when obeyed strictly - will seriously\n> cripple the ability to develop the style in a way that reflects mapping\n> priorities in OSM.\n>\n\n\n+1, it is also somehow arbitrary what is showcased on the front page, and\nthere are requirements like global availability that reduce the number of\npotential new maps there mostly to people doing business with OSM (because\nof the required ressources to offer an up to date global rendering that can\ncope with the number of requests from osm.org).\n\nGenerally we should keep in mind that this is the main style of a global\nproject, and that the project is likely still \"young\" in a certain sense.\n\"We\" are naturally already biased towards the \"western world\" and under the\ninfluence of western culture / point of view (inevitably, just have a look\nwhere we come from and where \"we\" live), and so are all our maps on the\nfront page (incl. HOT). With this requirement we would make this situation\neven less changeable / open to changes that don't fit into or a needed in\nthe western world (and often don't matter because the features in questions\ndon't happen to occur in the western world).\n\n\nIn general i think formal rules are not very beneficial in this context,\n>\n\n\n+1\n"}}