Re: [OSM-talk] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
On 01/03/2015, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: This is now a formal proposal to mechanically remove: denotation=cluster fixme=set␣better␣denotation From 200,000+ nodes. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt I agree with deleting the fixme tag. Concering the deletion of the denotation tag, on the one hand I agree because + its meaning is not obvious, and it doesn't seem to play well with other denotation values + the same information can be obtained from a spatial query. however: - there are ~20K uses of denotation=cluster that aren't associated with the fixme, and therefore seemingly not done by the automated edit. Please either delete all denotation=cluster tags regardless of their origin, or explain why the cases are different. - The other most-common denotation values (urban and avenue) suffer from the same issues. It would seem that *if* cluster is to be deleted, urban and avenue ought to suffer the same fate. I'm saying all this without having read the old discussions on the topic; sorry if I'm beating a dead horse. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [Talk-de] [OSM-talk] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
2015-03-02 18:41 GMT+01:00 moltonel 3x Combo molto...@gmail.com: Out of curiosity, how would you render denotation=cluster differently than other denotations ? Automatically create a forest polygon around them ? Render them narrower than normal trees ? Why ? I can see the interest in rendering landmark and natural_monument more prominently, but the usecase for cluster is much harder to define (and if it exists, a spatial query would probably still be better ?). the intention of the mapper who introduced it (by performing a database query and storing the results in the osm db, something you shouldn't do, we all agree) was to omit those trees in his renderings. He was interested in special trees and was asuming that trees close to other trees were less special (something I don't agree with per se, but in practice might have worked back then, because the mappers mapping special trees were typically mapping only those special trees, hence there was less probability of other trees _mapped_ nearby, even if there were actual trees in the real world). cheers, Martin ___ Talk-de mailing list Talk-de@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-de
[OSM-talk] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
This is now a formal proposal to mechanically remove: denotation=cluster fixme=set␣better␣denotation From 200,000+ nodes. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt The original mapper has commented on this proposal: *The fixmes are useless and can be deleted.* *The denotation flags still have their value. But I won't reopen the old discussion. It has been done to death back then. If people prefer to destroy other mapper's work by forcing a new meaning on existing objects with mass imports then that's the way it is.* And I disagree, since the tags can mechanically be derived from the data, and since nobody is maintaining the denotation tag. The original mapper's statement was: *NopMap: **Thu Sep 9 07:44:05 BST 2010* *From the topology analysis, I have marked every tree without further* *information that has another tree within 50m with denotation=cluster so* *you can tell it is not a single tree. That should be sufficient for* *distinguishing mass trees and solve the ambiguity. And it's not a* *probably, but a simple fact.* *For a first step, this was limited to all trees in Germany, I will extend it* *in a few days when I have more time.* On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 3:23 AM, SomeoneElse li...@atownsend.org.uk wrote: Just for a bit of background on this specific issue, for the lucky people who missed out on it last time around, the mechanical edit that added those values was discussed here: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2010-September/thread.html#4297 and there's some discussion (a couple of years after the event) on the German forum here: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=309562 The discussion on the GB list lead to a revert there: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2010-November/010492.html More comment from the Netherlands: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?pid=121302#p121302 Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Formal proposal: mechanically reverting fixme=set␣better␣denotation / denotation=cluster
On 1 March 2015 at 21:04, Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: This is now a formal proposal to mechanically remove: denotation=cluster fixme=set␣better␣denotation From 200,000+ nodes. See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Mechanical_Edits/Bryce_C_Nesbitt I support this proposal. -- Matthijs ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
