Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Sure it does. if access==no or access==false then allowed=no else allowed=yes So basically, you have to decide that all unknown values default to either one or the other. If I'm a renderer, and I come across bicycle=difficult, and I only know about no and yes, which one do I assume? IMO, at the very least, people who wish to extend existing tags in this way need to update the tag description page to say what the default is in the case of an unknown value. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: If I'm a renderer, and I come across bicycle=difficult, and I only know about no and yes, which one do I assume? Without commenting on the rest of the discussion: Surely you (the renderer) must draw such an object as if there were no bicycle tag at all, whatever that means for you. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Gervase Markham wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: if access==no or access==false then allowed=no else allowed=yes So basically, you have to decide that all unknown values default to either one or the other. If I'm a renderer, and I come across bicycle=difficult, and I only know about no and yes, which one do I assume? My entire point was that you extend the access tags for variations on yes alone. It doesn't remotely make any sense otherwise. Hence, as above: if access==no or access==false then allowed=no else allowed=yes If you like I can write a fourth message saying this in a different way, if it helps? Perhaps in Medieval Welsh for variety? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Edit-war-on-the-wiki-%22map-features%22-tp20683909p20862375.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Frederik Ramm wrote:
Without commenting on the rest of the discussion: Surely you (the
renderer) must draw such an object as if there were no bicycle tag at
all, whatever that means for you.
But that doesn't work, does it?
Say I'm a general purpose renderer who shows access. I understand
bicycle=no and bicycle=yes, and show them accordingly. Now, instead
of someone coming along with a new tag for their info, they extend
bicycle and do bicycle=difficult. My code hits it. If I've defensively
programmed my code, it'll do one of:
if (bicycle=yes) {
Do A
}
else {
Do B
}
or, alternatively,
if (bicycle=no) {
Do B
}
else {
Do A
}
Which should I have done? That's the question I'm saying that anyone who
wants to extend a formerly binary tag with new values needs to provide
an answer to before they start using the new values.
Say I assume bicycle=no for unknown values, as you suggest. That means
that bicycle-accessible bits, formerly rendered on my map, would
suddenly drop off entirely because someone decided to get more specific.
So in this case, an assumption of yes might make more sense. But it
might not in every case.
My point is that (leaving aside the specific bicycle example) extending
already-used tags in this way is going to result in confused renderers
and undefined and renderer-specific behaviour.
Gerv
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: Say I'm a general purpose renderer who shows access. I understand bicycle=no and bicycle=yes, and show them accordingly. You will also have to understand way without bicycle tag because that's what 90% of ways have. Now, instead of someone coming along with a new tag for their info, they extend bicycle and do bicycle=difficult. My code hits it. You treat it like way without bicycle tag. Anything else would be stupid. What exactly way without bicycle tag means for you, whether you're optimistic and assume that such ways can be used by bicycles or whether you're conservative and drop them from your map, is another, altogehter different matter. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Gervase Markham wrote: Which should I have done? That's the question I'm saying that anyone who wants to extend a formerly binary tag with new values needs to provide an answer to before they start using the new values. IMO, one should implement the even-more-defensive option C, which is: if bicycle=no: don't do it else if bicycle=yes: do it else: do whatever makes sense for your map here It is an incorrect assumption that the binary tag only contains yes or no (or a handful of variants) when an editor is allowed to enter arbitrary values. And assuming there are a fixed number of values for bicycle is (in some ways) just as bad as assuming there are a fixed number of values for, say, highway. (Well, it's none of these other things--it must be a motorway!) My point is that (leaving aside the specific bicycle example) extending already-used tags in this way is going to result in confused renderers and undefined and renderer-specific behaviour. I'd say this is totally true, in theory. But since we can't possibly stop people from extending tags (all they have to do is use Potlatch) we have to make sure the renderers can handle it. If someone edits the map to say bicycle=masochistic and a renderer draws it as a friendly bike route, it's the renderer's issue, ultimately. -Beej ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Richard Fairhurst wrote: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable The trouble with that sort of thing, as compared to (ignore the actual tag names, they are just to give an idea): bicycle=yes bicycle:surface=poor (i.e. splitting out access from quality) is that the former scheme doesn't have fallback - i.e. renderers have to know about all possible values anyone could invent, whereas the latter scheme has a simple version for most maps and then cycling-specific maps can bother with the extra complexity. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Gervase Markham wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable The trouble with that sort of thing, as compared to (ignore the actual tag names, they are just to give an idea): bicycle=yes bicycle:surface=poor (i.e. splitting out access from quality) is that the former scheme doesn't have fallback Sure it does. if access==no or access==false then allowed=no else allowed=yes Might even be the same code the renderers have at present. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Edit-war-on-the-wiki-%22map-features%22-tp20683909p20819144.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
surface=cobblestones/paved/gravel/sand/dirt/grass width=1m/2m ele=100m vs ele=150m ? Looks good to me. Describe what the road is like, rather than making subjective judgments. Every driver/cyclist/vehicle will be different and will have to make their own choices. You can't tag for that. Or perhaps usability:kia_cee'd:edloach=good / usability:unicycle:edloach=can't balance Might work? Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Per wrote: Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive! One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways. If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme! Smoothness is better than nothing. surface=cobblestones/paved/gravel/sand/dirt/grass width=1m/2m ele=100m vs ele=150m ? pothole_ratio=0.2 #20% of the surface are potholes max_pothole_size=50cm Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/2 Matthias Julius [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sebastian Spaeth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Per wrote: Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive! One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways. If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme! Smoothness is better than nothing. surface=cobblestones/paved/gravel/sand/dirt/grass width=1m/2m ele=100m vs ele=150m ? pothole_ratio=0.2 #20% of the surface are potholes max_pothole_size=50cm If it is a frequently traveled road by motorised vehicle, that size will not be very static. Doug ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Per wrote: Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive! One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways. If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme! Smoothness is better than nothing. surface=cobblestones/paved/gravel/sand/dirt/grass width=1m/2m ele=100m vs ele=150m ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
pothole_ratio=0.2 #20% of the surface are potholes max_pothole_size=50cm If it is a frequently traveled road by motorised vehicle, that size will not be very static. That depends on the country!! Bernhard begin:vcard fn:Bernhard Zwischenbrugger n:Zwischenbrugger;Bernhard email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] note;quoted-printable:liebe Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe=0D=0A= =0D=0A= Bernhard Zwischenbrugger=0D=0A= =0D=0A= http://datenkueche.com=0D=0A= Multi language online dictionary.=0D=0A= Add new words as easy as in an Excel Table. x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Stephen wrote: It's a warning, not a restriction. There are signs I've noted near here that are warnings: Unsuitable for motor vehicles This isn't an access permission, and isn't something I'd say was suitable for the proposed smoothness tag (as it is fine for cyclists and pedestrians, and indeed many vehicles do use it though some scrape the bottom of the car where the road crosses a bridge with rather strange angles to the road). For now I've not tagged anything to indicate the warning. More suitable for that sort of warning is this proposed tag (mentioned here a couple of days ago): http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hazard_warning Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Ed Loach wrote: Looks good to me. Describe what the road is like, rather than making subjective judgments. Every driver/cyclist/vehicle will be different and will have to make their own choices. You can't tag for that. Or perhaps usability:kia_cee'd:edloach=good / usability:unicycle:edloach=can't balance Except that leads to impossibly complex tagging and mapping requirements. pothole_coverage max_pothole_depth= max_pothole_circumference= max_pothole_length= max_pothole_width= average_pothole_depth= average_pothole_circumference= average_pothole_length= average_pothole_width= center_hump_height max_rut_depth max_stone_diameter average_stone_diameter max_root_diameter average_root_diameter minimum_ground_clearance largest_unavoidable_bump_height for a motorcycle largest_unavoidable_bump_height_for_a_car_2m_wide largest_unavoidable_bump_height_for_a_bicycle maximum_mud_depth average_mud_viscosity maximum_rut_depth maximum_puddle_depth_during_rainy_season maximum_puddle_depth_one_hour_after_5_cm_of_rain Get out your measuring sticks and other tools, and be prepared to stop regularly to measure! There's more to surface quality than merely what it's made out of. surface=* just doesn't cut it. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tuesday 02 December 2008 19:38, Alex Mauer wrote: Ed Loach wrote: Looks good to me. Describe what the road is like, rather than making subjective judgments. Every driver/cyclist/vehicle will be different and will have to make their own choices. You can't tag for that. Or perhaps usability:kia_cee'd:edloach=good / usability:unicycle:edloach=can't balance Except that leads to impossibly complex tagging and mapping requirements. (...) I think no one should block any one to at least try. smoothness answers a need, the solution of tagging every thing answer another (more precise) need. But no one should ever force others to tag how they do. Since at least a few are using smoothness, I don't see any problem to put it on map features, and let people who want, use it. But let also those people try to write a proposal that describe without ambiguitiy, without subjectivity what we are trying to do with smoothness. I'll even be glad to help (I have myself listed at least 10 tags for tracks). But the bad critics are easy : no don't, that's bullshit. (see chriscf) so please, every one that belive that we have done it bad, just start a proposal, describe the tags, start to use it, convince users. And once it proves superior I'll be the one to propose to depracte smoothness. As french says : Entre le dire et le faire, il y a la mer ( between say and do, there is a sea ) -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Now we can see a big discussion, but no one did anything constructive! One thing is clear, we need a tag to describe the usability of ways. If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme! Smoothness is better than nothing. Please have a look at and comment on: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Proposed_features/Smoothness#Be_constructive.21_Try_to_find_good_alternatives_to_smoothness.21 While Chriscfs objections are valid, he acts ignorant, uncommunicative and destructive and should be stopped! http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chriscf Per ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Per-15 wrote: If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme! Smoothness is better than nothing. That's debatable (as well as, er, very_horrible). Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend the access tags: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) It follows the time-honoured OSM principle of tag as much as you know/can be bothered to do; crowdsourcing will make the data richer over time. But I really can't be faffed with explaining this to a bunch of droids on the wiki who may never have seen a bridleway in their lives but won't let that stop them voting. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Edit-war-on-the-wiki-%22map-features%22-tp20683909p20768237.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Per-15 wrote: If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme! Smoothness is better than nothing. That's debatable (as well as, er, very_horrible). Agreed It does not provide a platform to build on at all. Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend the access tags: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) Now that makes perfect sense and fits in with usability. There IS a need for tagging things like width, height restrictions, and even 'steepness', but in the first instance simply getting a good coverage everywhere with a basic set of tags is more important than the excessive fine detail that is being proposed as 'basic tagging' ? I don't want to reopen an old debate, but contour lines are ALMOST essential around here for determining the severity of a walking route, while those routes are well surfaced in places, the change in altitude makes some of them impractical for some of us 'less fit' walkers. It follows the time-honoured OSM principle of tag as much as you know/can be bothered to do; crowdsourcing will make the data richer over time. But I really can't be faffed with explaining this to a bunch of droids on the wiki who may never have seen a bridleway in their lives but won't let that stop them voting. If there was an obvious set of tagging then there would not be a problem, but as yet there is nothing proposed that *I* would consider provides useful information. Perhaps it is time for secondary data projects - like the cycle map - to have thier own set of extra tags that are only used for those mapping excercises? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk// Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Hi bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) In Vienna we have an event called Friday Night Skating. Every week about 1000 Inline Skater meet at 10pm and skate on normal roads. The police blocks all the roads an it is possible to skate on roads that are for normal for cars only. The route is about 15 to 25 km. To plan an event like this is not easy. It should be a different route every week. If it's combined with sightseeing it's optimal. There are similar events in many cities like Paris, Munich,... sometimes with much more skaters. For beginners the road surface is very important. It should be possible to plan a Friday Night Skate route with data from OSM. If we have a tag skate:xy bicycle:xy people think it's allowed to go by bike or inline skates on this roads - but it isn't. For more info: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatenight http://www.nightskating.at http://www.muenchner-blade-night.de/ Sorry - all in German Bernhard begin:vcard fn:Bernhard Zwischenbrugger n:Zwischenbrugger;Bernhard email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] note;quoted-printable:liebe Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe=0D=0A= =0D=0A= Bernhard Zwischenbrugger=0D=0A= =0D=0A= http://datenkueche.com=0D=0A= Multi language online dictionary.=0D=0A= Add new words as easy as in an Excel Table. x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Per-15 wrote: If you don't like smoothness invent a better scheme! Smoothness is better than nothing. That's debatable (as well as, er, very_horrible). Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend the access tags: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) It follows the time-honoured OSM principle of tag as much as you know/can be bothered to do; crowdsourcing will make the data richer over time. This feels like a far more suitable solution, than smoothness (and Ice rink is smooth, but I doubt a racing bike would have much fun on it!). Having an additional rating per mode of transport seems to make substantially more sense. I believe some one else (Matt White) has recently posted a comment, wanting to know about a 4WD tag, to suggest that only 4WD vehicles would be suitable. The above approach could easily (and more importantly) and clearly indicate this. vehicle:2wd=unsuitable vehicle:4wd=difficult For me one of the biggest problems with smoothness (other than it being a terrible name), is that it is a generic tag, and we keep on seeing issues being raised where generic tags are not suitable for specialist hobbies/areas. We shouldn't be looking to add to this issue. But I really can't be faffed with explaining this to a bunch of droids on the wiki who may never have seen a bridleway in their lives but won't let that stop them voting. Further to Lester's comment. I'm some what amazed that we have not yet split out the tags to the different groups to allow for specialist tagging, and those that passionately care about those tags, can monitor that page/list. We would still want to standardise on a tagging format/method to keep things consistent. I would have thought we'd have sections along the lines of (and this is just off the top of my head) Buildings Motorised Vehicles Rail ways Footways Waterways Cycling Skiing Rolerblading etc etc, caution would need to be taken to not duplicate tags/purposes, and I am sure we'd still have healthy discussions (arguments) when those instances rear their ugly head. But I do not think 1 single page, covering every possible tag makes sense, if we are looking to be able to tag the entire planet, that page will quickly become unsuitable. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Bernhard Zwischenbrugger wrote: In Vienna we have an event called Friday Night Skating. Every week about 1000 Inline Skater meet at 10pm and skate on normal roads. The police blocks all the roads an it is possible to skate on roads that are for normal for cars only. You can't design/evolve a tagging system for the entire planet on the basis of an inline skating event in Vienna. That's insane. No tagging system will ever cover 100% of cases. But far better to have one which is 90% comprehensive and 100% intuitive, than 100% comprehensive and 25% intuitive. No-one's stopping you using less mainstream tags for your OpenSkateMap. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Edit-war-on-the-wiki-%22map-features%22-tp20683909p20769143.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:02, Bernhard Zwischenbrugger wrote: In Vienna we have an event called Friday Night Skating. Every week about 1000 Inline Skater meet at 10pm and skate on normal roads. The police blocks all the roads an it is possible to skate on roads that are for normal for cars only. The route is about 15 to 25 km. To plan an event like this is not easy. It should be a different route every week. If it's combined with sightseeing it's optimal. There are similar events in many cities like Paris, Munich,... sometimes with much more skaters. For beginners the road surface is very important. It should be possible to plan a Friday Night Skate route with data from OSM. If we have a tag skate:xy bicycle:xy people think it's allowed to go by bike or inline skates on this roads - but it isn't. Since smoothness=good/excellent handles this fine, I'd suggest to just use it. Cheers Robert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/1 Bernhard Zwischenbrugger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) In Vienna we have an event called Friday Night Skating. Every week about 1000 Inline Skater meet at 10pm and skate on normal roads. The police blocks all the roads an it is possible to skate on roads that are for normal for cars only. The route is about 15 to 25 km. To plan an event like this is not easy. It should be a different route every week. If it's combined with sightseeing it's optimal. There are similar events in many cities like Paris, Munich,... sometimes with much more skaters. For beginners the road surface is very important. It should be possible to plan a Friday Night Skate route with data from OSM. If we have a tag skate:xy bicycle:xy people think it's allowed to go by bike or inline skates on this roads - but it isn't. For more info: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skatenight http://www.nightskating.at http://www.muenchner-blade-night.de/ Sorry - all in German If this is an argument in favour of smoothness, then you would run in to exactly the same problem (just not as fine grained). If a user see's a road as being tagged as smooth, then they'd think that they could roller blade on it, which apparently they are not allowed to. Here, we run in to a problem where suitability and permissibility are not going along with each other. With Richards suggestion you could still have. bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) bicylcle=no Though that to me feels ugly, but at least feasable. Additionally, for now at least, a certain amount of sense has to be assumed, and that you wouldn't get some one rollerblading down a dual carriage way, during a normal day, just because a map told them it was smooth. If they did, then I think they'd be a prime candidate for a Darwin award! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend the access tags: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) The obvious problem with this is the massive redundancy. You need to tag for every possible form of transport, or infer suitability for something exotic from the provided suitabilities. On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:09, Douglas Furlong wrote: This feels like a far more suitable solution, than smoothness (and Ice rink is smooth, but I doubt a racing bike would have much fun on it!). Hurray for absurd arguments. Obviously, 'slippery=yes' is implied on ice rinks. I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit smoothness=*. Would one of you that think smoothness is worse than nothing care to comment on the definition by example I proposed in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-November/031779.html ? Cheers Robert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:15, Douglas Furlong wrote: If this is an argument in favour of smoothness, then you would run in to exactly the same problem (just not as fine grained). If a user see's a road as being tagged as smooth, then they'd think that they could roller blade on it, which apparently they are not allowed to. Here, we run in to a problem where suitability and permissibility are not going along with each other. Thus, we put permissibility in one key (skate=yes/permissive/no/...), physical suitability in others (surface=*, smoothness=*, steepness=*, slippery=yes/no). And we don't mix them all in one key. Smoothness is completely independent of access rights. What gave you the idea it wasn't? Cheers Robert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Robert Vollmert wrote: The obvious problem with this is the massive redundancy. You need to tag for every possible form of transport, or infer suitability for something exotic from the provided suitabilities. Yes, infer, like we do with every other tag. People realised they didn't need to tag bicycle=yes;horse=yes;car=yes on every road about five minutes after OSM started. You can still find some of those ways around if you look hard enough. ;) I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit smoothness=*. It's not about corner cases. It's about usability. Remembering what very_horrible means, or absolutely_smashing, or hhr_you're_my_best_mate_I_feckin_love_you_I_do, is just impossible. It's like tracktype all over again, just with silly names. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Edit-war-on-the-wiki-%22map-features%22-tp20683909p20769596.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Vollmert wrote: I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit smoothness=*. It's not about corner cases. It's about usability. Remembering what very_horrible means, or absolutely_smashing, or hhr_you're_my_best_mate_I_feckin_love_you_I_do, is just impossible. It's like tracktype all over again, just with silly names. Maybe arsecomfort would be better than smoothness... you drive down the road, and once you reach the end, you can easily determine if your backside falls into the lovely, a bit sore, bruised, haemmoroid hell or my coccyx is coming out my nose Works well for all types of seated vehicles... Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Douglas Furlong wrote: 2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) This feels like a far more suitable solution, than smoothness (and Ice rink is smooth, but I doubt a racing bike would have much fun on it!). Having an additional rating per mode of transport seems to make substantially more sense. I believe some one else (Matt White) has recently posted a comment, wanting to know about a 4WD tag, to suggest that only 4WD vehicles would be suitable. The above approach could easily (and more importantly) and clearly indicate this. vehicle:2wd=unsuitable vehicle:4wd=difficult For me one of the biggest problems with smoothness (other than it being a terrible name), is that it is a generic tag, and we keep on seeing issues being raised where generic tags are not suitable for specialist hobbies/areas. We shouldn't be looking to add to this issue. I had a go on the smoothness talk page to simplify the tag somewhat. Something along the lines of a simplified 3 tag scope (eg: normal, bumpy, rough - or whatever prettier equivalents), where the smoothness tag refers to the default vehicle type (I guess car for the main highway tags, bike for cycleway, horse for bridle way - you get the picture). The problem with marking smoothness for the default vehicle type, is that we are then left in a situation where we still have to map for the non-default vehicles. So for a road, smoothness=average, to me would mean actually nothing at all to be honest, for example. London side street, English Motorway, country side road, Irish back road, Irish main road. In all of the above a smoothness rating of average would be totally different, and almost certainly have no meaning at all to a Rollerblade. So, we come back to the same problem of how do we deal with the fringe users, the racing bike riders, the Rollerblades, etc. Which you cover below. This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle types easily - a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the tertiary highway type) smoothness:mtb=bumpy smoothness:racing_bicycle=rough (or unsuitable) smoothness:tank=normal (or even glass like :-) smoothness:rollerblade=unsuitable I really honestly can't see how the above differs from, for example. bicycle:mtb=bumpy bicylce:racing_bicyle=rough tank=normal skate:inline=unsuitable, Other than, we drop smoothness and replace it with the mode of transport in question. I would strongly suggest Richards suggestion is ultimately clearer, than the arbitrary smoothness tag. I don't personally like the term smoothness either, but I've yet to find a decent alternative (surface would be nice, but 'tis taken). The 4WD proposal (plug: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only) is a little bit separate. It could be taken into account using some sort of smoothness, track type, surface, take your pick, but I am specifically looking at tracks that are actually signed as 4WD only, to be rendered with a nice bit of text at the end of the road name to make it obvious what is 4WD only (most decent AU maps of hte country side have explicit 4WD tags of those roads that require it). Good for routing and the like (where the relative smoothness can be a bit subjective) Where you have the sign post for 4WD only, is that an access restriction or a suggestion? I.E. If you go on that road with a motorbike, or a 2wd vehicle, could you face prosecution? Or would you just be considered a bit foolish? If it is the latter as opposed to the former, then I'd rather see some thing along the lines of vehicle:4WD, as opposed to an access tag, which to date I believe is being used to indicate permissibility, as opposed to suitability, which are not the same thing at all. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED] Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Vollmert wrote: I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit smoothness=*. It's not about corner cases. It's about usability. Remembering what very_horrible means, or absolutely_smashing, or hhr_you're_my_best_mate_I_feckin_love_you_I_do, is just impossible. It's like tracktype all over again, just with silly names. Maybe arsecomfort would be better than smoothness... you drive down the road, and once you reach the end, you can easily determine if your backside falls into the lovely, a bit sore, bruised, haemmoroid hell or my coccyx is coming out my nose Works well for all types of seated vehicles... Unfortunately, that would then depend on the quality of seat that one is placing the arse upon :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/1 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: 2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend the access tags: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) The obvious problem with this is the massive redundancy. You need to tag for every possible form of transport, or infer suitability for something exotic from the provided suitabilities. On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:09, Douglas Furlong wrote: This feels like a far more suitable solution, than smoothness (and Ice rink is smooth, but I doubt a racing bike would have much fun on it!). Hurray for absurd arguments. Obviously, 'slippery=yes' is implied on ice rinks. I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit smoothness=*. Would one of you that think smoothness is worse than nothing care to comment on the definition by example I proposed in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-November/031779.html ? Because the corner cases sometimes express the fundamental problem in an obvious unsubtle way. Sometimes people point out corner cases just to be annoying :-) The reason I think no-one has commented on your definitions is because they're infinitely better than what was actually being proposed, and also have virtually nothing to do with what was proposed (they actually seem to be related to smoothness!). The reason for that is they describe a number of fairly specific examples, reduce the number of options, and don't even try to classify the rougher examples which is where most of the contradictions kick in. ie: a couple of tree roots on a cycle path make it good, lots make it intermediate, no mention of tanks. The question most people will come up with is, what do I classify a cycle path with an intermediate number of bumps as? You'd probably declare it doesn't matter, which I'd be inclined to agree with. The worst that happens is that a way spends the rest of its existence oscillating between the two states. You could probably relate it in some way to the cat/toast paradox, and if you could figure out a way to generate electricity from it you'd become rich. Or introduce a deliberately fuzzy border value like bad/intermediate. And wait the necessary 20 mins for someone to point out this is qualitatively different from intermediate/bad. Anyway, the main problem with definition by example is what happens when the examples don't fit. This happens surprisingly often. You basically have two choices, just guess, or introduce a new example for everyone to argue over. You're also only defining the value for a specific purpose, which is generally less useful than objective features which can be used for many purposes. Of course if you're only interested in the specific purpose that distinction isn't going to interest you, which is fair enough. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Douglas Furlong wrote: This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle types easily - a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the tertiary highway type) smoothness:mtb=bumpy smoothness:racing_bicycle=rough (or unsuitable) smoothness:tank=normal (or even glass like :-) smoothness:rollerblade=unsuitable I really honestly can't see how the above differs from, for example. bicycle:mtb=bumpy bicylce:racing_bicyle=rough tank=normal skate:inline=unsuitable, Other than, we drop smoothness and replace it with the mode of transport in question. I would strongly suggest Richards suggestion is ultimately clearer, than the arbitrary smoothness tag. I wasn't suggesting it was any better, although I kind of like the core key name first (smoothness:vehicletype=*) as it doesn't waste the primary tag (and something like skate:inline=unsuitable doesn't actually indicate what the why it is unsuitable (too steep, bad surface, high traffic volume, idiot weekend cyclistd abound etc.) I don't personally like the term smoothness either, but I've yet to find a decent alternative (surface would be nice, but 'tis taken). The 4WD proposal (plug: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/4WD_Only) is a little bit separate. It could be taken into account using some sort of smoothness, track type, surface, take your pick, but I am specifically looking at tracks that are actually signed as 4WD only, to be rendered with a nice bit of text at the end of the road name to make it obvious what is 4WD only (most decent AU maps of hte country side have explicit 4WD tags of those roads that require it). Good for routing and the like (where the relative smoothness can be a bit subjective) Where you have the sign post for 4WD only, is that an access restriction or a suggestion? I.E. If you go on that road with a motorbike, or a 2wd vehicle, could you face prosecution? Or would you just be considered a bit foolish? If it is the latter as opposed to the former, then I'd rather see some thing along the lines of vehicle:4WD, as opposed to an access tag, which to date I believe is being used to indicate permissibility, as opposed to suitability, which are not the same thing at all. It is the latter (it is a recommendation) rather than a legal restriction. The point of such an explict tag is so that when I'm out driving, the map actually shows the 4WD state as text (given that I dont think the Garmin I have really has any other way of visually distinguishing the road state/vehicle requirement) Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Douglas Furlong wrote: 2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Vollmert wrote: I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit smoothness=*. It's not about corner cases. It's about usability. Remembering what very_horrible means, or absolutely_smashing, or hhr_you're_my_best_mate_I_feckin_love_you_I_do, is just impossible. It's like tracktype all over again, just with silly names. Maybe arsecomfort would be better than smoothness... you drive down the road, and once you reach the end, you can easily determine if your backside falls into the lovely, a bit sore, bruised, haemmoroid hell or my coccyx is coming out my nose Works well for all types of seated vehicles... Unfortunately, that would then depend on the quality of seat that one is placing the arse upon :) Now you're just being picky... :-) Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/12/1 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008/12/1 Richard Fairhurst [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personally I believe the easiest and most flexible thing is just to extend the access tags: bicycle=no|yes|difficult|unsuitable so you'd get highway=bridleway foot=yes (permitted, no problem) bicycle:racer=unsuitable (permitted but not practical) bicycle:hybrid=difficult (permitted but challenging) bicycle:mtb=yes (permitted, no problem) The obvious problem with this is the massive redundancy. You need to tag for every possible form of transport, or infer suitability for something exotic from the provided suitabilities. On Dec 1, 2008, at 11:09, Douglas Furlong wrote: This feels like a far more suitable solution, than smoothness (and Ice rink is smooth, but I doubt a racing bike would have much fun on it!). Hurray for absurd arguments. Obviously, 'slippery=yes' is implied on ice rinks. I do wonder why people are always jumping on the corner cases to discredit smoothness=*. Would one of you that think smoothness is worse than nothing care to comment on the definition by example I proposed in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2008-November/031779.html ? I've just had a read of this post, and I think my primary concerns are still present. My biggest issues is that smoothness varies depending on the vehicle in question, and as such it's just to vague to really be of use. If you tag a road with smoothness valid for a car user (what type of car? 4wd big effin thing, or a lotus elise?), then what about a cyclist (and lets not even start looking at the different types of cyclists!). I just perceive it to be far to vague to cover the average users of that way, it's got nothing to do with fringe cases at all. I think a merger of the two suggestions would make sense. vehicle type:vehicle sub type=smoothness factor This allows us to clearly define what is going on, and have it explicitly relevant to the different vehicle types that would use it. Yes, certain inference would be required for the majority of locations, however it DOES allow for specialist tagging for those who care to do it in those area's, and they would all reside together, and be easily understandable. smoothness factore can also have different definitions based on vehicle types. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Douglas Furlong wrote: 2008/12/1 Matt White [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Douglas Furlong wrote: This makes is pretty straightforward to tag for all vehicle types easily - a tertiary road that has a fair few potholes could be smoothness=bumpy (given that car is the primary vehicle for the tertiary highway type) smoothness:mtb=bumpy smoothness:racing_bicycle=rough (or unsuitable) smoothness:tank=normal (or even glass like :-) smoothness:rollerblade=unsuitable the bumpy/rough/unsuitable are just examples, and of course would need further clarification. But more importantly, they could be dependant on the leading values. Agreed. That was what I was trying to get to on the Smoothness talk page - a horse for courses approach. Probably not very clearly given my propensity for prolixia I.E. skate:inline, could have totally different values to bicycle:mtb, which could be specified by the enthusiasts that use that form of transport. I'm not certain why you want smoothness first, ultimately the end user should never REALLY have to know about the order these values per tag, we should be relying on the editors, to have reasonable graphical interfaces to allow for an easy way of ticking boxing and selecting drop downs of relevant values. More just in keeping with existing tag/sub tag keys like name= and name:en= than anything else. Given a lot of the keys that are currently in use, it's getting close to almost requiring a more explicit key/sub key structure (which just leads us to needing key:subkey: subsubkey structure :-) ) and renders to render the maps depending on these values. I don't personally like the term smoothness either, but I've yet to find a decent alternative (surface would be nice, but 'tis taken). If it is the latter as opposed to the former, then I'd rather see some thing along the lines of vehicle:4WD, as opposed to an access tag, which to date I believe is being used to indicate permissibility, as opposed to suitability, which are not the same thing at all. It is the latter (it is a recommendation) rather than a legal restriction. The point of such an explict tag is so that when I'm out driving, the map actually shows the 4WD state as text (given that I dont think the Garmin I have really has any other way of visually distinguishing the road state/vehicle requirement) This sounds a bit like tagging for the render, which I believe is frowned upon. Having vehicle:4wd=suitable (or what ever), could just as easily be rendered, as a 4wd access tag, however it would fall in to the whole suitableness kinda argument that is going on. It sort of is tagging for the renderer, although I was only going to mark roads that are physically sign posted as 4WD only (thus removing a large chunk of subjectivity). It's borderline, and I'll just modify the mkgmap script I use for generation of garmin maps for the moment. But given that there's a solid barney going on over the smoothness tag, and the rack tpye and surface tags both suck and don't really convey the meaning... well, who knows. Until then, I guess I have to use something. I have found some tags kicking around where equipment= was used with reference to diff lockers, mud tyres etc. There's only about 10 4WD tags in the system so far. In the long run, it does sound like the 4WD requirement might be a fairly specific Australian thing, so it might be more useful if us AU mappers agree to something useful and move on from there (note that I'm not a big fan of this regional key stuff, but we are stuck with a lot of UK-centric tags and icons, so maybe it's a chance to get our own back :-P ) We need to separate visual representation of features, from how that feature is tagged, as they are not the same thing. I'd be curious to know from a maintainer of one of the visualisation projects, which they would find easier to work with. Ditto. Matt ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
hi smoothness I found a wiki page - but it's in German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zustandserfassung_und_-bewertung They have a scale from 1 to 5 for zustandswert: 1.5 : maximum for new roads 3.5 : warning level 4.5 : /Schwellenwert - the road must be repaired /For measuring there is a mashine called planograph: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planograph Here a pdf with nice pictures: http://squadra.net/downloads/Workshop_messtechnische%20Erfassung.pdf maybe there are similar infos in english - but I couldn't find. Bernhard begin:vcard fn:Bernhard Zwischenbrugger n:Zwischenbrugger;Bernhard email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] note;quoted-printable:liebe Gr=C3=BC=C3=9Fe=0D=0A= =0D=0A= Bernhard Zwischenbrugger=0D=0A= =0D=0A= http://datenkueche.com=0D=0A= Multi language online dictionary.=0D=0A= Add new words as easy as in an Excel Table. x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Frederik Ramm wrote: Gervase Markham wrote: Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of mappers agree on something today, in two or three months those 90% would perhaps only form 30% of the community... This is actually an argument _for_ Map_Features and some sort of meritocracy, not against. It was intended as an argument *against* binding votes. Anything that is carried by a (even vast!) majority today might be a minority opinion a few months later. But all of those new people generally have far less mapping, OSM and tagging experience than the older people. Which means that if you don't have some sort of binding (or at least, highly recommended) set of tags created by those with more experience, different people will make the same newbie mistakes over and over again when it comes to thinking up tags. Lots of other projects (e.g. Wikipedia) have a regular flux of newcomers. They don't seem to think that this stops them making policy, or having experienced people making decisions about style or the way of doing things and then having them enforced. The pseudo-egalitarianism of the opinion of everyone who is involved has equal weight is a recipe for either deadlock or anarchy. No project - commercial or volunteer, large or small - runs itself that way. Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Douglas Furlong wrote: My biggest issues is that smoothness varies depending on the vehicle in question, and as such it's just to vague to really be of use. No it doesn't. It's not like a paving machine runs just ahead of every off-road vehicle, making the road smoother for them. The smoothness of the way is the same, whether you're using inline skates, or a tank. The vehicle is just a tool for measuring the smoothness. At one end of the scale, you have a perfectly smooth ride (or at least the best the vehicle can give), no matter what vehicle you're in. At the other end, you have total unsuitability for all but a few vehicles. If you tag a road with smoothness valid for a car user (what type of car? 4wd big effin thing, or a lotus elise?), Did you even read the smoothness key page? It clearly defines different values for each of them. If it's usable in the former, it's at worst smoothness=horrible. If it's usable in the latter, it's at worst smoothness=intermediate. There is no smoothness valid for a car user. bad is usable by a normal car, intermediate is usable by a sports car. (I consider the Elise a sports car). then what about a cyclist (and lets not even start looking at the different types of cyclists!). I just perceive it to be far to vague to cover the average users of that way, it's got nothing to do with fringe cases at all. There is no generic cyclist. It depends on type of bicycle they're using. And smoothness takes that into account. A mountain bike (and a suitably skilled rider, presumably) can use routes that a racing bike cannot. specialist tagging for those who care to do it in those area's That's not what the smoothness key attempts to accomplish. What it attempts to do is give a simple, single-key estimate of how rough/smooth a road or path is. The various vehicle types are there only to give examples of what sort of vehicles can be expected to tolerate a given class of road (and to say how a road which can be tolerated by a given vehicle should be classified). Are there perhaps two different sets of expectations for the smoothness key? On the one hand, there are people who expect something like mtb:scale and sac_scale, where it defines the quality or difficulty of a given route for a given vehicle type. And on the other hand, there are people who just want to know how smooth the route is (based on what vehicles can handle it), and can judge from there whether they're willing to take their vehicle down it. I think the smoothness key is currently based around the latter, and that the objections come from the former. -Alex Mauer hawke signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Where you have the sign post for 4WD only, is that an access restriction or a suggestion? I.E. If you go on that road with a motorbike, or a 2wd vehicle, could you face prosecution? Or would you just be considered a bit foolish? It's a warning, not a restriction. I regularly take my 2WD on one of these roads, every time I visit my aunt. On the other hand, I'm only going about 2 kilometres, I know I can handle that bit of the road as long as it isn't raining so hard the surface has turned to porridge, and the really bad parts are past her house. I've gotten a few odd looks from 4WD drivers going the other way (passing isn't easy, either), but no one's ever tried to stop me. On the other hand, some of these roads are hundreds of kilometres long, with possible fords/flooding, steep hills, bad ruts, and no inhabitants to turn to for help. I wouldn't want to take a single 4WD on those roads, let alone a 2WD. Stephen ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Frederik Ramm wrote: Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of mappers agree on something today, in two or three months those 90% would perhaps only form 30% of the community... This is actually an argument _for_ Map_Features and some sort of meritocracy, not against. In order to know which sort of tagging schemes work well and which don't, the biggest thing you need is experience. If you don't have that, and if you aren't given guidance, you are likely to tag in dumb ways. And, as we are expanding so fast, the experienced will always be outnumbered by the inexperienced. Which means that, without guidance, most tagging will be not as good as it could be. Having experienced people in leadership, and actually doing some leading and making decisions, is something that most groups consider an asset, not something to be avoided. I continue to be amazed that OpenStreetMap is so allergic to it - at least in the area of tagging. No-one is suggesting forbidding people from tagging however they like. But you can tag any way you like is not the same as all tagging schemes are equally sensible or we should make data consumers and renderers support six different ways of doing everything if they want to render the whole world. (Exactly how one would get to the stage of having appropriately-chosen decision-makers is a different question, of course. But route is not the same thing as destination.) Gerv ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/11/26 Alex Mauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Pieren wrote: I would also show the fact that it was approved by keeping the entry in the Approved Features with a note that strong oppositions and open issues have to be fixed before it goes to the Map Features. I agree that would be appropriate if there were any strong oppositions besides chriscf saying I don't like it. Reading the talk page, there are the following: [snip] subjective: This is really about being vague. Addressed, in that there are clear criteria for how smoothness should be determined. No, subjective is really about that there are some paths which I'd consider impassible with a wheeled vehicle, and have then seen someone zoom down on a mountain bike. That makes the assessment essentially dependent on my skill level on a mountain bike. ie: subjective. The table is full of such subjective assessments: can I roller blade on it. No, I can't. It doesn't help that I can't roller blade at all. So sure, if the tag was, is it possible to roller blade down this road assuming a skill level of a Grade III Roller Blading Proficiency Award? then it might have a point, but it's not. Can I use a racing bike on it? How often are you willing to stop to repair punctures? Did you buy an easily broken racing bike, or a slightly tougher one? And as has been mentioned by someone else, are we supposed to be taking account of quicksand? Because that's potentially quite smooth. Or a perfectly smooth road that permanently has 3 inches of standing water? This tag actually has nothing to do with smoothness, it's just that smoothness is a particular property which is useful to know for some of the excellent and good transport mediums. So the key name really sucks. Is it usable with a tank? WTF?! One of the main things that's going to stop a tank is road width.. but that clearly isn't going to stop a bike as much. But maybe the road is really wide and smooth enough for roller skates, just with tank traps built in (you can easily get round them with roller blades). Basically the tag is awful, but that's never stopped anyone in the past, so meh. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
However, if there is a strong opposition (but not only from one person), then I would also suggest to re-open the proposal and try to reply to the valid remarks/questions. I agree with, that. However, I won't say that their are strong oppositions, for what I have read (appart from Andy laughing, wich already makes it a good proposition for that point, since everyone likes laughing) but constructives remarks. I would put appart the chrisCF problem, wich is imho a one man problem, but of no concern with the proposal (any attempt to let him talk here has failed, any attempt to let him propose a better thing failed) and if you dig a bit in the wiki, he is just of constant bad faith, willing a fight, liking to disturb things. that is easy to solve : delete is account You want to have you opinion ? http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Chriscf I bet he is the number one man of undos : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Rejected_features/Statusaction=history http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Talk:Erfurtaction=history And of, course, his new ultimate suprem ~20 undos record : http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:smoothnessaction=history -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features ( become wiki tool is bad )
On Wednesday 26 November 2008 10:09, Ed Loach wrote: PS: so, don't you think wiki would be good to talk about all that ? (or a forum ?) It's a time thing partly. I understand your point, wikimedia has a damed bad missing feature : - sending a mail on modify of page (with modification) you are interested in (or if it exist, I am just blind) That's why I would be so much happy that discussions take place on a forum, and wiki serves only for résumé I've been using wikis for about 3 years (starting with wikipedia) and whatever my level of knowledge on it have reached, wikimedia is NOT good for discussions. But diffusion lists are almost as bad in many others regards, missing (easy) links, pictures, syntaxe enlighting (don't tell me HTML exists, It's just a pain in emails). Forums are IMHO the best trade off for our needs, with a wiki as established thing pages and list as new announcements Keep in mind I am talking about the technical tool, not about the goal we have for it. so perhaps there should be a post here to mention the start of each proposal phase and another saying that a phase will close If I remember well in the case of smoothness, I have made the vote starting annoucement here. However I droped the vote send approach annoucement -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
PS: so, don't you think wiki would be good to talk about all that ? (or a forum ?) It's a time thing partly. By the time I've read the couple of hundred or so emails that arrive each day, done a day's work and spent at least some time with my family, time to start then reading web-based forums and then visiting wiki pages to see if there may or may not have been any discussion on them is time I rarely have. Email in that respect is much better for discussions and I see little difference between what people have to do to sign up for an email list from having to sign up for a wiki account. Also back in September I'd not really tried much wiki editing and not knowing how it all worked was a bit off putting working out how to edit just to comment; I know how to use email... I've learned a lot since by expanding the pages related to progress in places in Essex, and looking at the code that generates the maplint tests from the Map Features page, so if a proposal gets mentioned on this list I do usually go and have a quick look. It is unlikely I'd go back after the initial mention though, so perhaps there should be a post here to mention the start of each proposal phase and another saying that a phase will close in a certain number of days if no more comments/votes whatever are received. I think sometimes I see those here, but certainly not for all the proposals. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Andy, this is a very good summary of the choices we face. As long as important pages on our wiki contain statements like However, there is no guarantee that a tag listed here will be rendered ..., the public will regard us as amateur map makers. Contrast this with our professional quality rendering and the mind boggling detail stored in our database. So we need to identify members capable and willing of making tough decisions and then give them the necessary support. If no one has distinguished him / herself at the various mapping parties / meetings, we should look for well written pages on the wiki and promote the individuals involved. Alternatively we can choose people who have done a lot of tagging. For example Milenko, beej71, wildMan, kiya, Skywave, devrise, blars, GercoKees, uboot, MichaelCollinson, andrewpmk, ewedistrict, beldin, Alban, katpatuka, ulfl, mackerski dkt or Sven Anders. On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 7:20 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Sebastian Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it has been voted on and should thus stay on Map Features. Therein lies the problem, in my opinion, specifically with the thus. Things could be voted on, but not put onto the Map Features page, perhaps - otherwise we'll end up needed an edited highlights of map features - given we're going to map *everything* on the planet, it's becoming increasingly less feasible to have everything documented on the one page, both technically and editorially. And isn't multiple pages one of the joys of a wiki? A grey-scale of importance and/or acceptance? Or should just everyone edit the wiki without regard for others. Therein lies the strawman. It's not a binary choice between everyone having an equal vote (no matter their level of experience, talent or other meritocratic traits) and individual anarchism. There's other possibilities that are demonstrated in other parts of the project, especially amongst the developers, mapping party organisers and sysadmins[1], but aren't used on the tagging discussions on the wiki. More thought should be put into the alternatives available - maybe by perusing the sidebar at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy for some ideas. But since it's a complex subject, and neither the wiki nor the mailing list promote any better form of discourse than a simple tit-for-tat refuting of points taken out of context (c.f. all the email I ever send, which are often unhelpful and ill-thought out), and often create a binary oversimplication of complex nuanced subjects, I unfortunately hold out little hope of constructive dialogue. Cheers, Andy [1] Meritocracy, do-ocracy and benevolent dictatorship, perhaps. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Alternatively we can choose people who have done a lot of tagging. For example Milenko, beej71, wildMan, kiya, Skywave, devrise, blars, GercoKees, uboot, MichaelCollinson, andrewpmk, ewedistrict, beldin, Alban, katpatuka, ulfl, mackerski dkt or Sven Anders. I had a similar idea, democratie has, imho, the general dis-advantage of giving a vote power to people who are not aware of things they are voting for. What about giving the voting power to people that actualy map things they know about ? ... And/or what about elections in the osm word, for a few dozen deputies that will be renewed every X days, that discuss between then ? -- sly sylvain letuffe ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
sylvain letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alternatively we can choose people who have done a lot of tagging. For example Milenko, beej71, wildMan, kiya, Skywave, devrise, blars, GercoKees, uboot, MichaelCollinson, andrewpmk, ewedistrict, beldin, Alban, katpatuka, ulfl, mackerski dkt or Sven Anders. I had a similar idea, democratie has, imho, the general dis-advantage of giving a vote power to people who are not aware of things they are voting for. What about giving the voting power to people that actualy map things they know about ? All those people have voting power already. If they all would use it the votes would already be much more representative than they are now. In the end, those knowledgable people need to want that voting power for this to work. I'm afraid many people have other interests besides debating about the merits of a certain tag (like mapping?). After all, people only start to worry about how to tag post boxes when they start to map post boxes. ... And/or what about elections in the osm word, for a few dozen deputies that will be renewed every X days, that discuss between then ? Again, I don't think anybody will start voting because you gave him explicit voting power. I repeat myself here: Keep voting as it is now, but, instead of adding that stuff to Map Features add it to Approved Features and let it mature there and become established. If after a certain time (maybe 6 month) a feature has become accepted by mappers it can migrate to Map Features. And the number of occurences in planet.osm is certainly not a sufficient criteria for this. More significant is probably the number of mappers that have used it and the geographic distribution. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Pieren wrote: I would also show the fact that it was approved by keeping the entry in the Approved Features with a note that strong oppositions and open issues have to be fixed before it goes to the Map Features. I agree that would be appropriate if there were any strong oppositions besides chriscf saying I don't like it. Reading the talk page, there are the following: smoothness and surface: Addressed by way of explanation: any mentioned surface types are examples, not criteria. Furthermore, they're no longer used in favor of describing what vehicles can use it. subjective: This is really about being vague. Addressed, in that there are clear criteria for how smoothness should be determined. catastrophic: The term catastrophic doesn't fit. Addressed by using a different term. impassable: how can a way be impassable -- if it's impassable, it's not a way. Addressed by noting that smoothness only applies to wheeled vehicles. Not all ways are meant to be used by wheeled vehicles. laterally varying smoothness. This one was not addressed, but is IMO a very minor one, as OSM does not currently have any general way of dealing with anything that differs between left and right on a way. elaborate on 4wd: Addressed by using more correct term. The rest are not seriously objections. There are: ...various alternate proposals...some vehicles missing from the table...a suggestion to break it up into a bunch of different keys ... discussion of default values...discussion of the deprecation of another tag. So yeah. Only one unaddressed objection, and that one is very minor. If I missed something, I'd love to be pointed at it. If not, it's my opinion that the smoothness tag should stay in map features (assuming that map features is to remain the place for recommended tags to be listed) On the topic of whether that's a good idea and/or fixing the size of map features, I think the thing to do would be to only list keys on map features. Values should be documented on the Key:* pages. -Alex Mauer hawke ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness We should stop the game now. All the people who like the Map Features page should say something about this edit war even if they don't care about smoothness. I really feel disappointed. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Pieren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness We should stop the game now. All the people who like the Map Features page should say something about this edit war even if they don't care about smoothness. I really feel disappointed. I'm trying to make my mind up whether this is a bad or very_horrible state of affairs, but I'm too busy laughing. Go ChrisCF is all I can say - I'd rather that the wiki was a meritocracy than ochlocracy and I'm flabbergasted that such ill-conceived tagging is now an acceptable norm. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 04:49:36PM +0100, Pieren wrote: The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness We should stop the game now. All the people who like the Map Features page should say something about this edit war even if they don't care about smoothness. I really feel disappointed. Agreed. It needs to stop, people need to discuss the issue here instead. Is the feature used? Then, let it stand until discussed. Can the people who enable it and revert it *please* speak up here instead? As for the the database is the fasit, you can use whatever tags you like-opinion, imho it's not so good either. We need to agree on as much as we can, or else it's not a world map anymore, just bits and pieces of separate map initiatives, all meddled together in the DB. (a bit exaggerated, of course). Someone needs to rethink the map features-process, imho, but so far I have not much better proposals myself... Reduntant tags and confusion gains noone in the end. Certainly not the task of creading a free map of the world. This is why we need Map_features-page. And without it, it would be pretty much impossible to join the project at all, it would just be too hard to gain an understanding on how to tag. -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Andy Allan schrieb: On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Pieren [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness We should stop the game now. All the people who like the Map Features page should say something about this edit war even if they don't care about smoothness. I really feel disappointed. I'm trying to make my mind up whether this is a bad or very_horrible state of affairs, but I'm too busy laughing. Go ChrisCF is all I can say - I'd rather that the wiki was a meritocracy than ochlocracy and I'm flabbergasted that such ill-conceived tagging is now an acceptable norm. Cheers, Andy Whether one finds the tag excellent or very_bad is out of the question, time will tell if it will be in good use. I just think that edit wars are an impassable way to go, it will just lead to a bad result. Even if the tag is horrible, it has been voted on and should thus stay on Map Features. Or should just everyone edit the wiki without regard for others. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Nov 25, 2008, at 17:16, Andy Allan wrote: Go ChrisCF is all I can say - I'd rather that the wiki was a meritocracy With those in charge that show most determination in an edit war? than ochlocracy and I'm flabbergasted that such ill-conceived tagging is now an acceptable norm. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with distinguishing between a normal paved road and one that's suitable for inline skating with smoothness=good vs. smoothness=excellent. Or between roughly cobblestoned road and the one most people wouldn't mind riding a bicycle on with smoothness=bad vs. smoothness=intermediate. What's your way to tag surface quality? Cheers Robert ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tuesday 25 November 2008 17:52, Robert Vollmert wrote: On Nov 25, 2008, at 17:16, Andy Allan wrote: Go ChrisCF is all I can say - I'd rather that the wiki was a meritocracy With those in charge that show most determination in an edit war? Let's drop oil on the fire ! ( even if it's not friday !) You are answering to Andy on that ?? It will, inevitably end, on a wiki VS developpers VS talk liste WAR we've already seen about highway=path and so many other wiki stuff. And probably some one will talk about hitler then, so I request the point first ;-) Andy, is against the wiki process, and I respect his opinion, I also listen carefully to his arguments, and respect his awsome work, but you/we shouldn't start on that... S*** that's what I've just done... -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Sebastian Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it has been voted on and should thus stay on Map Features. Therein lies the problem, in my opinion, specifically with the thus. Things could be voted on, but not put onto the Map Features page, perhaps - otherwise we'll end up needed an edited highlights of map features - given we're going to map *everything* on the planet, it's becoming increasingly less feasible to have everything documented on the one page, both technically and editorially. And isn't multiple pages one of the joys of a wiki? A grey-scale of importance and/or acceptance? Or should just everyone edit the wiki without regard for others. Therein lies the strawman. It's not a binary choice between everyone having an equal vote (no matter their level of experience, talent or other meritocratic traits) and individual anarchism. There's other possibilities that are demonstrated in other parts of the project, especially amongst the developers, mapping party organisers and sysadmins[1], but aren't used on the tagging discussions on the wiki. More thought should be put into the alternatives available - maybe by perusing the sidebar at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochlocracy for some ideas. But since it's a complex subject, and neither the wiki nor the mailing list promote any better form of discourse than a simple tit-for-tat refuting of points taken out of context (c.f. all the email I ever send, which are often unhelpful and ill-thought out), and often create a binary oversimplication of complex nuanced subjects, I unfortunately hold out little hope of constructive dialogue. Cheers, Andy [1] Meritocracy, do-ocracy and benevolent dictatorship, perhaps. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
I'm in absolute un-diplomatic mood, but there are, in this mail NO personnal attack of any kind. And as I am writing it, it turns out it is not more a matter of smoothness, but still : All the people who like the Map Features page should say something about this edit war even if they don't care about smoothness. I really feel disappointed. I'm comming ! But is my point at all needed ? I'm the one who pushed smoothess and made it vote with help of many others, will my point be of any value ? Agreed. It needs to stop, people need to discuss the issue here instead. And what about if we think talk is a very bad place for that ? what about if the cause of our problem, ChrisCF, to name him, doesn't want to take part of that discussion here ? Am I not going to lose yet another extra time ? -- sly (sylvain), a bit bored of those religious wars Ok, I will make the effort... Is the feature used? Tagwatch says ~800, but is that a proof of anything for a new tag or bad tag or good tag ? I don't think so. The answer to many solutions is, if it is not used, then it is bad. If it is used, then it is good. Does any one wants to talk with me about tracktype ? My point is : tags are used because they are on the wiki or because they are rendered not because they are good. Then, let it stand until discussed. Can the people who enable it and revert it *please* speak up here instead? I am responsible of 3 undo, I have given up. Someone needs to rethink the map features-process, imho, but so far I have not much better proposals myself... I don't either, so I use what we have because this is the best we have. And that keeps a form of discussion. On one side people are just voting no or yes for just some kind of fun, with very great arguments such as too stupid useless and so on On the other side renderer maintainer or tool maintainer say how stupid it is and useless it is I will never allow this to be renderered and let, maybe a good idea, drawn on it's own because it isn't used anywhere. While still not bringing arguments beside I know it is wrong Back to our problem --- Words on the wiki speaks for themself, we have ONE guy that is constently undoing one thing, and 5 others trying to stop him, if you look at his contributions, there is no chance you could say he is respecting a process, whether he is right or wrong. We have defined a process that has the value it has, the, we have to respect it or propose a new one, or else, evolution is hard. So ? the problem is new ? so smoothness is the cause ? maybe yes, or maybe just because on 100 wiki guys, statistics says there will be at least be one *$@'[*%. The solution is easy to me, without respect of the process, the account should be banned. I volonter up for being a wiki garderner or moderator. Wikipedia is age of advance on us for that, we just need to stop saying wikipedia is bad, we are not the same and just open our eyes and see how they manage it, and what we can take from it. -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
2008/11/25 Robert Vollmert [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Personally, I don't see what's wrong with distinguishing between a normal paved road and one that's suitable for inline skating with smoothness=good vs. smoothness=excellent. Or between roughly cobblestoned road and the one most people wouldn't mind riding a bicycle on with smoothness=bad vs. smoothness=intermediate. What's your way to tag surface quality? Who knows what you can or can't inline skate on? Who knows what makes a sports car a sports car? What's the difference between a trekking bike and a city bike? What's the worst terrain a tractor can handle? I've never even seen a rickshaw and how many people have ridden in a wheelchair? It's impossible for me to use the tag because it requires quite intricate knowledge of several different forms of transport of which I have no experience. Then there is the slight problem that I would put the forms of transport I do know about in different places in the table. I might be wrong here but it looks like the whole tag originated to document if a road can be used easily by a racing bike. If people who have never ridden a racing bike use the tag how good is that data going to be? IMO the effort to get it on map features means the tag now fails to solve the original problem. Is trying to get specialised tags through a majority vote ever going to work? Would it not have been better just to come up with a tag, document it on the wiki and start using it? -- DavidD ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
The Map Features page is really a very important page and not only for newcomers. It is supposed to show the commonly agreed way of tagging core features. But now we have this edit war about smoothness which enters in conflict with tracktype and surface. The way how those tags can co-exists is poorly documented at the moment (the same issue appears with path and footway/cycleway/bridleway). This gives a very bad impression for newcomers if we continue to provide different solutions for the same features in the page saying This page contains a core recommended feature set and corresponding tags. I agree with Andy : this single page cannot receive all possible features. And I have some ideas about other features which are not justified in this core feature set page. But this surface/tracktype/usability subject seems to be enough important to be included. And the temptation to put an accepted key/value in the Map Feature is very strong, like a page one in a newspaper. However, if there is a strong opposition (but not only from one person), then I would also suggest to re-open the proposal and try to reply to the valid remarks/questions. Pieren On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Andy Allan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Who knows what you can or can't inline skate on? Who knows what makes a sports car a sports car? What's the difference between a trekking bike and a city bike? What's the worst terrain a tractor can handle? I've never even seen a rickshaw and how many people have ridden in a wheelchair? You raised very good questions, too bad we haven't seen those on the wiki. But nothing is ever finished, we could make a better description, ask for people that don't known not to tag. I personnaly have never tagged anything smoother than bad because I don't use racing bikes. This proposal, as for sac_scale, as for mtb, as for almost anything doesn't ask people to tag things they don't know. It is just making assumption, that a rickshaw (but seriously who cares ?) is able to go where a passenger car can. If at any time, a rickshaw specialist raise a comment that rickshaw can pass where passenger cars can't, then I'll move it from categorie (or at least will propose to) It's impossible for me to use the tag because it requires quite intricate knowledge of several different forms of transport of which I have no experience. Don't you use at least one type of weeled transport ? then just tag for it and nothing else. If you tag a road as very_bad because you did not manage to go over it with you passenger car. Then that's allready a good information, maybe I will come back later with my car and move it back to bad, and so what ? or maybe will I move it to very_horrible, because my tractor didn't even manage to do it. osm The Free Wiki World Map I might be wrong here but it looks like the whole tag originated to document if a road can be used easily by a racing bike. No it didn't, it was added later because we thought it was better to cover from smooth as glass to rought as impassable instead of just two tags The origin comes from my need in the mountain to help drivers to know when there will be an high risk for them to hit the ground and damage their car. And no keys was able to answer that. If people who have never ridden a racing bike use the tag how good is that data going to be? IMO the effort to get it on map features means the tag now fails to solve the original problem. They will create a racing_bike scale, as we are creating an mtb scale Is trying to get specialised tags through a majority vote ever going to work? Would it not have been better just to come up with a tag, document it on the wiki and start using it? I don't think so. If we do, we will have tags like tracktype that people want to use because they are rendered and because there is nothing else. In a real life governement, you don't just use a law to see if it fits and see if it doesn't have too much side effects. You think of it, discuss of it, vote on it, make some tries with it, then remove or validate it. -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Sebastian Hohmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote: Even if the tag is horrible, it has been voted on and should thus stay on Map Features. Or should just everyone edit the wiki without regard for others. The tag is, in my opinion, very_horrible, but that is besides the point here. In my opinion the name for unclassified and parts of the places structure just as bad. We need to have a place to document the most used tags and tags that should be known, and easy to find, for newcomers as well as trained mappers. That is the Map Features page, and it should be reserved for a core set of tags, recognised by the most important renders and/or routing application. Smoothness is _not_ such a tag. The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved features, not Map Features. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Hi, We should stop the game now. All the people who like the Map Features page should say something about this edit war even if they don't care about smoothness. I really feel disappointed. Agreed. It needs to stop, people need to discuss the issue here instead. Is the feature used? Then, let it stand until discussed. Can the people who enable it and revert it *please* speak up here instead? It totally agree that it has to stop. I don't even care about the tag. But the way ChristCF changes the page breaks the rebuilt of maplint. And since I'm working on maplint that is a very bad thing. Patrick Petschge Kilian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved features, not Map Features. That could be a solution. And I think that's where we need to go anyway as the map feature page is just too big. What you seams to propose here is keep the good tags well in view and the bad tags hidden somewhere I would agree with the idea, but what is bad or wrong ? Since it's hard to answer, it seams to be in the air that a used tag is good, and an unused tag is bad. But I don't agree with that. Arguments are on my other (rather too long) message PS: just for bad faith : So is GNU/linux bad right ? So is OSM bad right ? -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Gustav Foseid wrote: We need to have a place to document the most used tags and tags that should be known, and easy to find, for newcomers as well as trained mappers. That is the Map Features page, and it should be reserved for a core set of tags, recognised by the most important renders and/or routing application. Smoothness is _not_ such a tag. As for the tags that are being rendered by Mapnik or [EMAIL PROTECTED], if somebody makes a list of those I would put them on the wiki somewhere close to the renderer. This is because of two reasons: a) If a tag is not rendered on a map that is made for the general public this does not mean that this tag is not important on a specialized map - for example a map made for inline skaters. b) Remember: We are not tagging for the renderers. It is good to have the end-user in mind when you map and tag. But the renderer is not an end-user! And if they were - those would only be two flavours of a huge list of possible uses of the OSM data. The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved features, not Map Features. I disagree in this point. How do we decide what is a widely used tag? And how can a new tag widely used when it is not on the Map Features wiki page? Therefore I would not try to split up the list. When I visit the Map Features page my expectation is that I see the whole catalog of tags available (or at least get a pointer to a new page which explains that group of tags). The voting process and its imperfectness has been discussed a lot. And this is a different topic really. But I still see the voting process being useful. It is a very good way of quickly getting opinions that could leave to one of two decisions: a) The proposed new tag somewhat fits into the world of existing tags. b) There is no better idea out there on how to better tag this new feature. And even though the new tag might not be the perfect solution - if nobody comes up with a better idea during the voting process - this is a good start for calling the tag approved and recommend it for everybody elses use. RalfZ Munich, Germany ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
sylvain letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved features, not Map Features. That could be a solution. And I think that's where we need to go anyway as the map feature page is just too big. What you seams to propose here is keep the good tags well in view and the bad tags hidden somewhere I would agree with the idea, but what is bad or wrong ? I would see the Approved Features more like a staging area. Features that are approved are added there. Features that really establish themselves should eventually be added to Map Features. Since it's hard to answer, it seams to be in the air that a used tag is good, and an unused tag is bad. But I don't agree with that. That would bo too simple. There are a couple more criteria like: - is there an alternative way of tagging - which of the alternatives are used more - which have been used more recently - ... There seem to be a number of people who are really enthusiastic about tagging schemes. I would welcome if they would get together to form the Tagging Committee and create their own wiki page with their recommendation for a concise and consistent tagging scheme for the world. If that has its merits it will be adopted by the mappers. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Ralf Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The voting process and its imperfectness has been discussed a lot. And this is a different topic really. But I still see the voting process being useful. It is a very good way of quickly getting opinions that could leave to one of two decisions: a) The proposed new tag somewhat fits into the world of existing tags. b) There is no better idea out there on how to better tag this new feature. And even though the new tag might not be the perfect solution - if nobody comes up with a better idea during the voting process - this is a good start for calling the tag approved and recommend it for everybody elses use. The biggest criticism of the voting has been that only very few people participate in it and how are those 15 people to tell thousands of mappers how to tag. And of course the counter argument is that if you care you should vote. But, whatever the reason for people to not participate, the voting process is not very representative of the mappers. I guess many people only start to care about a particular tag when they need to. So I think it is a good idea to collect features that have been approved by the voting process outside of Map Features. If actual usage then shows that a feature has been accepted by a wider group of people it can be added to Map Features. If a newly approved feature is meant to replace one that is on Map Features I would only add a note to Map Features linking to that alternative. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Ralf Zimmermann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for the tags that are being rendered by Mapnik or [EMAIL PROTECTED], if somebody makes a list of those I would put them on the wiki somewhere close to the renderer. This is because of two reasons: a) If a tag is not rendered on a map that is made for the general public this does not mean that this tag is not important on a specialized map - for example a map made for inline skaters. b) Remember: We are not tagging for the renderers. It is good to have the end-user in mind when you map and tag. But the renderer is not an end-user! And if they were - those would only be two flavours of a huge list of possible uses of the OSM data. We are not tagging for renderers, well it had to be mentioned, didn't it? No, that's right, we do not tag for renders, which means we do not tag something landuse=park, because we want it to be shown as green on the map, but because it is a park. The place for an approved tag which is not widely used is Approved features, not Map Features. I disagree in this point. How do we decide what is a widely used tag? And how can a new tag widely used when it is not on the Map Features wiki page? The other day I needed to tag a ski jump. That is not a widely used tag, even if each and every ski jump on the planet should be tagged with it. I would not expect a new mapper in The Gambia to be familiar with this tag, just as I would not need to know how to tag different varieties of mangrove. To me there are some core tags (highway=primary) which every mapper should be familiar with. On the other end of the scale there are things like bus guideways or ski jumps. I would consider an area fully mapped, even if a pelota field or a couple of grit bins are missing, but not if a primary highway is gone. Somewhere, there should be a more or less clear and concise list of tags that most mappers should be somewhat familiar with. I think this should be Map Features. Today, Map Features is full of almost unused tags (bus_guideway), contradictions (soccer vs football), hard to understand descriptions (no tag for this type yet, mostly out of order) and endless lists of shops and amenities. For tags of regional importance (mangrove, ski jump), we have national map features pages already. Here you can add tags which are not important everywhere, as well as national interpretations of the universal tags. One example is what link and primary should be in varying countries. If you come across something special, venture into unknown territory (I am actually going to the Gamboa soon, and need to read up on those mangrove tags), you should know where to look. This could be approved features or somewhere else. - Gustav ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
I'll admit I visited the proposal page when the call for votes was first announced here in September. The discussion still seemed unfinished, and I couldn't see me ever using the feature, so then forgot about it. The discussion still seems unfinished but the voting seems to have closed with the key approved, which to me suggests some problem with the process of proposal/discussion/voting/approved or not. Or perhaps I should have just opposed it when the voting opened because it didn't seem ready for people to vote on, and not clear enough what it was for (something I still think is the case). But if it is to do with who easy a hilly road is to drive then smoothness seems a completely misleading choice of word, and it is something I won't need around here unless an artificial hill is built. We have roads that can be driven on, cycleways that can be cycled on, footways that can be walked on and tracks which might or might not be accessible (and then I'd do things like bicycle=yes, car=no or whatever if there was any doubt). I don't *need* smoothness for that. Gradient might be a more useful tag (and for all I know might exist - as I said, no hills around here), as it is not subjective. A road is either steep or it isn't. I don't see how you can use smoothness to say smoothness=ok for a Renault Trafic but I wouldn't try it in a Clio. A Ford Mondeo would probably make it if it has a manual gearbox, but the automatics might struggle on the slippier bits or something like that. I can't see the proposal working. I've tried, but I can't. The other issue as has been mentioned here is the template page breaking Maplint. Both sides in the edit war should be careful when editing to ensure that the template uses the same format as is used for all the other Map Features sections. Anyone not doing so will cause problems for many more users who use the Maplint information than the couple of dozen who are discussing smoothness. I'm more concerned about the Maplint tests continuing to work than whether smoothness ultimately ends up on the page or not. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Hi, Matthias Julius wrote: The biggest criticism of the voting has been that only very few people participate in it and how are those 15 people to tell thousands of mappers how to tag. Most of all since we're growing exponentially and even if we had 90% of mappers agree on something today, in two or three months those 90% would perhaps only form 30% of the community... And of course the counter argument is that if you care you should vote. If you care then you should have joined earlier and voted will not convince. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
First of all - I think those edit wars are silly. Please think before you get involved in these things. Put your energy into some useful stuff instead of just fighting an opinion you might not understand right now. Who knows what you can or can't inline skate on? Inline-Skaters do! Who knows what makes a sports car a sports car? What's the difference between a trekking bike and a city bike? What's the worst terrain a tractor can handle? I've never even seen a rickshaw and how many people have ridden in a wheelchair? This is a good point. When inventing a new tag, people should be very specific about objective information, not about subjective possibilities. Instead of tagging usable_for_trucks=no do something like max_height=2.5 meters and max_weight=10 tons. This way it is more useful. Just imagine a routing application where you can enter the height and weight of your truck and you get a route that you can drive with YOUR truck. It's impossible for me to use the tag because it requires quite intricate knowledge of several different forms of transport of which I have no experience. Some people have this kind of special knowledge and I encourage those to add special tags to the features they map. If I do not see the benefit of those tags today - who am I to say they are bad or useless? My view is limited! For those people that don't know these peculiar details - don't use the tags! But don't fight them. (That includes me for a lot of tags - I just ignore a lot of tags because I never took the time to read what they are used for) For example, if there are people that map ways in my area riding on horse backs. They use different tags than I do. Are those tags bad then? Don't think so. OSM is so wonderful because of the diversity of its contributors. They do the mapping while jogging, bicycling, riding a horse, riding a motorcycle, driving a car, pushing a baby carriage. And they all have a different view on how OSM will benefit them. And guess what? - They are using different tags. Is trying to get specialised tags through a majority vote ever going to work? Would it not have been better just to come up with a tag, document it on the wiki and start using it? This is how a lot of people do it, without talking about it (much). This approach is one of the beauties of OSM - I think. Invent a new tag, use it widely and show how much sense it makes. This will convince people much more easily than writing a wiki page with lots of one could, one would and one should phrases. The one good reason to write a proposed feature page in the wiki (in my eyes) is if you have an idea but you are not sure on how to actually tag that best or how to avoid redundancies with other tags. Then you can use the wiki page to outline your idea and also collect some comments from others. RalfZ Munich,Germany ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Hi, Pieren wrote: The feature smoothness has been enabled and disabled 12 times in the past 7 days from the wiki Map Features page: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:Map_Features:smoothness I have tried to understand what this is about but failed. Obviously some guy named ChrisCF thinks he owns the place and writes things like I will not allow this and that - an attitude that will surely influence my own behaviour should I encounter him on the Wiki. His criticism seems to be that there's a lack of values - and it its current form the page really doesn't have any which is strange. On the other hand, there's no rule that every tag must have a discrete list of values so I wonder what's the big deal. As for every tag going to Map Features, maybe it really is time we split - put everything that is widely used on Map Features, and make another page with Other Features where we have all those that have been proposed and accepted or rejected in a vote but aren't yet widely used. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
First comment on the ChrisFC problem - to be that there's a lack of values Is that what you understood he meant ? I am a bit lost in trying to understand what he does propose to make things better or to give new values... I thought it was about not good words or too subjective values, or that we didn't manage to understand his very interesting point of vew that I could resume by : When you have objective criteria and a less stupid value set. Not before. Chriscf 11:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC) Even if it was mentionned many times that it was in no way perfectly objective values because it is impossible Second comment I have read previously is : Instead of tagging usable_for_trucks=no do something like max_height=2.5 meters and max_weight=10 tons. This way it is more useful Yeah, perfect idea, but impossible in our case : we have tried hard to perfectly describe a track, but that would require so many informations that no one will ever tag it. * max slope in %, max turn in ° * max size of stones/gravel, mean size of stones/gravel * presence of tree branch, lieves * mud, sand, water, roots * depth of max holes, mean size holes * min distance between two holes I'm trying to imagine myself with a ruler ! And think of the poor guy configuring his GPS : - wheel size, max possible slope, crampons size, power engine, min distance between flat road and motor engine, tires pressure ! That previous example is not aware of some places's reality. max_height=2.5 meters is easy to tag when there is a sign saying it. But not every tunnels or way in that world have a sign giving the width or the heigh, and even more, saying size of roots in cm on the way. It then boils down to two choices : a) don't tag those things and stay un-informed b) make a rather good guess until someone destroys his truck's roof and come and correct the data with X cm less than the actual Y meters The surface tag is a bit of that kind and has not been able to answer the question is it usable third comment : - and tracks which might or might not be accessible (and then I'd do things like bicycle=yes, car=no or whatever if there was any doubt) Are you so sure it's just that binary ? It is not until you have mentionned what vehicle you are using, and that's what smoothness is done for. for car=no this is one of the main concern of this proposal : It tags physical properties. How will you then make the difference between the already existing car=no that mean you are not allowed to go there with you are not physically able to go there ? Perhaps you don't care, perhaps I do care. Some times in life, a law has said something, but you might still want to overcome that law, and since a map is tagging reality of things, I would then tag a forbidden passable track with : highway=track motorcar=no smoothness=bad sounds stupid ? I'm sure you all can guess at least one usage for that, even if it is almost bad faith I've heard that tracks are all motocar=no in germany, but still, I strongly suspect people in germany to take their responsability, pay the bill if they are cought, be still want to know if it is passable And the last one I want to comment : I don't see how you can use smoothness to say smoothness=ok for a Renault Trafic but I wouldn't try it in a Clio. A Ford Mondeo would probably make it if it has a manual gearbox, but the automatics might struggle on the slippier bits Easy answer : you can't. And no tag will ever cover that. Does that mean we have to let it go ? No because it make a rather good guess of what can or cannot drive on it. Ski slopes have 4 levels of difficulty, does that say you will or won't have problem skiing on ? no it doesn't : you have yourself the need to make a good guess of what you level is. All those mapping tags, wich ever they are, don't prevent anyone from using their brains Even the previous sign saying 2.5 meters will not make me drive at 130 km/h with my 2.4999 meters truck under it PS: so, don't you think wiki would be good to talk about all that ? (or a forum ?) -- sly sylvain letuffe ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 11:50 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As for every tag going to Map Features, maybe it really is time we split - put everything that is widely used on Map Features, and make another page with Other Features where we have all those that have been proposed and accepted or rejected in a vote but aren't yet widely used. I agree that it is time to moderate the size of the Map Features page and follow what is writen in the introduction: This page contains a core recommended feature set and corresponding tags. But this implies to modify and split the templates and duplicate the work for all translations (currently between 15 and 20 !). It would be a good opportunity to re-arrange the existing page Approved Features : rename it as Other Features, link it clearly from the Map Feature header and create similar groups. The next problem is that nobody is able to claim that a tag belongs to a core feature or not... although some of them seem to be obvious and have been already listed here (bus_guideway, etc). Also tagwatch could help in that way. But if tagwatch can show the (un)popularity of old documented tags, it cannot help for new tags. Finally, to stop this edit war, I would suggest to move the page Smoothness out of the Map Features and re-open a discussion from the proposal. But I would also show the fact that it was approved by keeping the entry in the Approved Features with a note that strong oppositions and open issues have to be fixed before it goes to the Map Features. Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Hi, Slight tangent on the edit war (which has morphed into a discussion of what to do with the ever-growing list of map features on the wiki)... We don't want to tag to the renderer, but knowing what clients utilize what tags is important. In my experience with user-collected data in X-Plane I have found that there is a huge difference in data quality between data that is heavily validated by the tool-set while/soon after the user works and data that is collected for use much later or never. Applying that to OSM, I would expect that the one-way information in OSM should be relatively good because users will see if they got their one-way or way-direction wrong as soon as mapnik or [EMAIL PROTECTED] rebuild the tile image. By comparison, errors in the height of antennas/masts would be harder for users to detect because there isn't visual feedback of this (at least that I know of in the main map layers). So in trying to answer the question about what are good and bad tags for the purpose of making a short listing of the most important tags and a longer listing of less important ones, I think that: - renderer and toolset support is very important because it will impact data quality. - use of data by a particular client projects (the main map or other efforts) are important because they naturally group tags and provide warm bodies to detect problems. - frequency of tag usage on the actual map is probably a good indicator of how general a tag is. To throw out a straw man for reorganizing the Wiki (and I think having good docs on tag schemes is important), perhaps it would make sense to have: 1. core tags, including tags drawn in the main map renderings, tags that are widely used, and tags that are subject to error checking. 2. all tags, a huge laundry list. 3. per-usage/client/project lists of used tags for a given application, so that map makers who are targeting that application can be sure they are doing complete work. (E.g. if someone is working on an aeronautical map, not having the height of all masts is a completeness problem...but that's perhaps a lot more important to aero-map folks than the general community.) I think we have to accept in a wide-spread crowd-sourced project that there is going to be a huge range of data quality and tag completeness...regarding the smoothness tag if most roads don't have smoothness data, that's a cost of the form of OSM...a sub-project cannot mandate that all map makers provide all possible information to all client efforts. But conversely that doesn't make smoothness wrong - it just makes it of narrow interest. (If there are problems with the actual proposed smoothness tag, that's a separate issue...) (If someone working on a client project needs a particular tag, that person can gain leverage by adding tool support for the tag, making it easier to use and less error prone for everyone...) cheers Ben -- Scenery Home Page: http://scenery.x-plane.com/ Scenery blog: http://xplanescenery.blogspot.com/ Plugin SDK: http://www.xsquawkbox.net/xpsdk/ X-Plane Wiki: http://wiki.x-plane.com/ Scenery mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Edit war on the wiki map features
Ok, I used to skate for the past, and what can i say is, the smoothness tag is here very useful... actually all curb are not usable with roller or skate, even if they are with bikes...so this is a tag for someone who wants to map a curb... Thus, the tag makes sense... I think we can manage here if we start to stop being brats... -- Steven Le Roux Jabber-ID : [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0x39494CCB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2FF7 226B 552E 4709 03F0 6281 72D7 A010 3949 4CCB ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
