Christoph Hormann wrote > It always amazes me how much the map style influences the mapping > practice, not only by obvious tagging for the renderer but also in the > form of subtle priorities. Having two separate styles - a 'data > verification' style and a 'presentation style' would help reducing this > effect.
It is an interesting question if that would be indeed the case. I believe that one of the main motivating factors for many mappers for putting in all the effort of mapping is the reward of contributing to something important and "big" and being able to be "proud" of the result. That is imho why you see those subtle shifts in priority depending on what is displayed on the main map. It is simply more rewarding to work on something that is perceived to be more "meaningful". However, for this to work, the main style needs to have a certain popularity among end users including being embedded into third party websites. If you now split the styles into one "presentation style" and a "data verification" style, then the "data verification style" instantly looses that appeal as it will only be viewed by a few. Recently there has been a lot of talk about "gameification" of OSM. In my opinion, one of the most powerful "gameifications" of OSM has been to have a prominent map shown on osm.org and have it update on a minutely basis. It really is a rather powerful reward to see your effort being directly incorporated into the "in production" map within minutes which can and _is_ viewed by millions of people. It is likely a much stronger reward than any artificial "badge" or "points" and has the advantage it is much less likely that people will manipulate things to "game the system". Well, I guess you do get "gaming the system" to some degree as well in form of "mapping for the renderer". So I think the main map really does need to strike a delegate balance between, and cater for both the "presentation style" and "data verification style" despite the fact that they are somewhat contradictory. Imho, the solution of cleaning up the low zoom tiles to "look good" for general use and then increasing or at least maintaining the detail on z18, z19 (and z20) is perhaps the best compromise we can achieve. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Default-map-style-on-osm-org-tp5775267p5775543.html Sent from the Developer Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
