Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-21 Thread Janko Mihelić
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020, 16:00 Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? > When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag the object > also will still be correctly tagged :) > You're right, I meant the whole information is still there.

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-21 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 21. Sep 2020, at 15:36, Janko Mihelić wrote: > > or if someone outright deletes the utility tag, that power pole is still > correctly tagged. if it is a power pole, why would you remove the utility tag? When there’s a highway=track and you remove the tracktype tag

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-21 Thread Janko Mihelić
There are a lot of big power towers that carry an optical communications line together with the power lines. Would that be utility=power;communication? Adding specific implied information is not wrong, but data consumers shouldn't rely on them. If someone changes utility=power to

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Paul Johnson
On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 11:58 AM Joseph Eisenberg < joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote: > The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags > in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous. > > Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads >

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this > particular situation? utility=power seems to be a redundant concept in general (you can see which kind of lines are attached - if they

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
sent from a phone > On 20. Sep 2020, at 18:59, Joseph Eisenberg > wrote: > > Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this > particular situation? while I am personally not unsatisfied with power=pole I could understand that people who want to deprecate this

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread Joseph Eisenberg
The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous. Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads and "oneway=yes" on motorways to make the situation explicit. But the original question was

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-20 Thread François Lacombe
Thank you all for replies Then the current proposal sounds to be ok regarding what is said upside. I admit to automatically adding implied tags when importing data covered by the proposal, so no apparent problem is mappers add them explicitly. All the best François Le jeu. 17 sept. 2020 à

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-17 Thread Kevin Broderick
+1. Explicit tagging indicates a level of confidence not generally associated with implicit tagging. While there's certainly an 'ad nauseum' level of doing so (e.g. adding surface=paved, motor_vehicle=yes to highway=motorway in the U.S. would be kinda silly, IMO), there are plenty of cases where

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-17 Thread Matthew Woehlke
On 16/09/2020 18.32, Paul Johnson wrote: No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly. It's actually encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be ambiguous between "you can't turn from this

Re: [Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-16 Thread Paul Johnson
On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe wrote: > Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags if > they want to? > The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an > error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags. > No, it's not wrong to

[Tagging] Best practices regarding implied tags

2020-09-16 Thread François Lacombe
Hi all, This proposal is currently in RFC https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Utility_poles_proposal It proposes among other points to make man_made=utility_pole + utility=power implied by power=pole (for sake of consistency with telecom utility poles which won't get a