Re: [talk-au] camp sites
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + power). Over time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g. how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another bloody campsite=* value, of course!). This also introduces unnecessary complexity that makes the data harder to use (e.g. an app that allows search for showers suddenly needs to know about the definition of campsite=serviced). I've made this point several times over the last several years, but either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or drinking water. So much of your use case is covered. Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made. I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably better. So we are playing the odds ! Please consider voting ! david ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3 May 2015 at 10:22, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database. The proposed categories are almost a mapping of the amenity to broad categories. So the mapper would have to identify the amenities, decide on a corresponding category, and tag that. I can't see any reason why this responsibility should be given to the mapper. The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware of. Ian. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3/05/2015 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote: I can't see any reason why this responsibility should be given to the mapper. The corresponding categories may be better held in a software ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite that they are aware of. Mappers take on many responsibilities. If a mapper chooses to enumerate all the facilities that too is a responsibility. And then the responsibility of rendering the 'level of amenity' falls to the render. Whatever way it is cut there is a 'responsiblity', and I'd rather see the 'rules' and have the mapper make the choice from local knowledge rather than pass it to some remote person who can only judge it from a yes/no answer. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On 3/05/2015 10:22 AM, David Bannon wrote: On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to look closely at the problem from a map user's point of view. We identified, in a few emails, twenty plus characteristics of camp sites that would interest people. There are undoubtedly a lot more ! Not possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. The object it to show on the map (without interrogation) the level of amenity at camp sites. If say 5 camp sites are shown on the map in close proximity to each other, at the moment there is no way to visually distinguish (from the rendering) between them for level of amenity. Most of the camp sites I have been too where a toilet is available have had water too, even 'dry' toilets (long drop or other). I'd think 'they' do this for sanitary reasons! The introduction of this tag does not mean that camp site features cannot be added in other ways, additional to or despite this tag. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] camp sites
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to look closely at the problem from a map user's point of view. We identified, in a few emails, twenty plus characteristics of camp sites that would interest people. There are undoubtedly a lot more ! No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database. Not going to happen. But, speaking to campers around the world, it emerged that the scheme on the proposal adequately described a large percentage of camp sites AND a large percentage of end users needs. Its how campers describe sites amongst themselves. The assumption being the 'other' things probably come along at the appropriate level. So this proposal is about providing information to the end user (of typically a map). Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that the data is usable. And no reason to assume using this tag will discourage tagging of the individual features. Indeed, in typical usage, once a user identifies a likely camp site, they will drill down in some way and look at the details. Your concern seems to be about feature creep, I really cannot guarantee that won't happen but assure you the designers don't plan any such behaviour at this stage. Quite the converse. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site David power). Over time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g. how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another bloody campsite=* value, of course!). This also introduces unnecessary complexity that makes the data harder to use (e.g. an app that allows search for showers suddenly needs to know about the definition of campsite=serviced). I've made this point several times over the last several years, but either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote: On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: Hi, My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable water. Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or drinking water. So much of your use case is covered. Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made. I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably better. So we are playing the odds ! Please consider voting ! david ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
