Nov 15, 2020, 19:14 by jayands...@gmail.com: > Idea > Has anyone ever thought of creating an official database that stores all of > the approved and in-use tags/features in OSM? > Yes. Depending on what one means by "database" OSM Wiki can be considered as one. Wikidata copy ( https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data_items ) is definitely one. How your proposal differs from data items? > > Reasoning > This could allow the editors (iD and JOSM, StreetComplete, GoMap!) and data > consumers (osm-carto,. Mapbox etc.), to easily stay up-to-date with new > features, without requiring their developers to browse the Wiki etc. > I see no benefit whatsoever of data items (from perspective of someone involved in making StreetComplete and was active in osm-carto development). Browsing Wiki, Taginfo, reviewing how tags are actually used and so on would be definitely needed. > > Examples > Both iD and JOSM have their own preset file/repo and are independent of each > other. Creating a database that could be used as a dependency of both that > would store these feature presets and their fields means: > - Both are up-to-date and in-sync > - Adding new presets could be done automatically by retrieving and parsing > data from the DB. > There is a good reason why presets are created manually and not pulled from unreviewed dataset (note that JOSM and iD have separate presets despite that pulling from another preset would be technically possinle) > Creating applications that use OSM data can be hard and time-lengthened by > requiring developers to browse the Wiki to find all of the features and their > keys and values. Having a database that they could easily get the keys they > want, their values, etc. would > significantly> allow greater OSM developer > potential. > I am unsure what would be difference. > Specifics > The specifics as to how this database would be arranged such as to where > presets/fields/tags/features go has not been thought of yet. I just wanted to > ask if this has ever been proposed before. If someone would like me to make a > DB layout to help them better understand what I'm proposing, I'd be happy to > do so. > > My pre-DB construction proposal > > Before any type of database is made, one would would > construct a dedicated > page structure on > openstreetmap.org <http://openstreetmap.org>> > that > would display and be in-sync with all of the Features from the DB in a format > similar to the Wiki, and then > remove all of the features from the Wiki > altogether. > > Why?> If you see in > Compiling and distributing the DB> below, a Wiki bot > is going to be required to get all of the pages for all of the > already-standard features. Most of the features' pages do have a similar > structure as to how they are arranged (template that shows what elements they > use, Keys' values and their descriptions are stored in a table, etc.), > however these pages would be > impossible> to parse thoroughly with a > computer and are going to require team of humans to get all of their data. > > New features that are proposed and approved after the database would be > created would require them to be hand-added. Making a standard way to propose > and approve new features on a new part of the website with formatting > constraints and database-syncing abilities that MediaWiki cannot offer, would > mean that the DB would never have to be physically touched again and ensure > greater long-term DB management efficiency. > > So why basically delete one of the primary functions of the Wiki and create a > new system on > openstreetmap.org <http://openstreetmap.org>> ? > I recently have got into the OSM community head-on in the past two months. I > have never really contributed to Wikipedia or any other site that uses the > MediaWiki website format so learning about how to contribute and get around > the OSM Wiki took time (learning about the proposal process, Templates, talk > pages, formatting, the list goes on and on...). It also made me realize that > this could discourage new users from ever looking into the depths of OSM or > even finding the Wiki at all. The WikiMedia interface is not the prettiest > either. It can take time for new users to explore and find what they are > looking for. > (Also, this would mean moving the proposal process over to > osm.org > <http://osm.org>> too) > > Therefore, I think creating a easily accessible, pretty, and > easily-contributable interface on > osm.org <http://osm.org>> would > strengthen the OSM community significantly. For example, a heading called > "Features" could be added to the left "GPS traces". It would greet the user > with the primary features of OSM (kind of like the "Map features" on the Wiki > already does) and Feature pages would have a standard format that is > consistent throughout the website (unlike Wiki pages where tables for values > can be different, proposals can be different, etc.). Pages could also be > "locked", or require a proposal before ever changing any of the contents of > their page/feature. This would ensure the DB is secure and uniform with the > community's agreement on Features (the database is directly synced and edited > through changes on the website) and no "random edits' by users like on the > current Wiki would have to tracked (since anyone can directly edit). There > are other possible benefits that you could probably think of. > > Also, other pages on the Wiki would not be deleted. There are plenty of great > pages on it that have nothing to do with the DB and work well in the open > environment the Wiki has to offer. > > Compiling and distributing the DB > One would probably use a Wiki bot like > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser> to get all of the > features with Categories "approved" and "in-use" (and "depreciated" as well > just to let possible future editors know what to get rid of) and add their > Keys and Values, descriptions, what elements they are allowed on (nodes, > ways, areas, relations), etc. to the DB. > A team would have to go through all of their Key Values that don't have Wiki > pages and add them to the DB along with their descriptions, etc. > A team would compare the iD and JOSM present repo and xml file and create a > "standard" matching list. > When the DB is finished, iD and JOSM would use it as a dependency and an > announcement would be made to data consumers that it is available for use. > Feasibility > This would probably be a huge undertaking and require a funding grant. A plan > and dedicated team would be required to ensure all of the tasks are complete > and put in-place. I personally think the benefits outweigh the costs, > specifically from a developer point-of view. Also, I am not an OSMF member so > I'm not sure how much say I would have in making this possible. > > Questions?> > Please reply. I like big OSM ideas and am not afraid to get shut-down as I > have before with previous ideas. I am clearly a newer contributor, but I hope > my ideas and work can foster progress for OSM. > > -- > Thanks, > Seth Deegan (lectrician1) >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
