Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On 28.12.2014 17:45, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: >> "you'd probably want to discuss that over at >> https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues"; > > I thought that https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2220 will fix this > problem. Maybe that's why most of the oneway=no I checked come from Potlatch. I know little about that editor, because there's no Flash plugin available for my platform. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On 28/12/2014, Ole Nielsen / osm wrote: > It depends. Sometimes it is useful to add this tag. I typically add it to > bidirectional cycle paths along roads as you would normally expect such > cycleways to be oneway. Adding a oneway=no indicates that it has been > surveyed and found to be bidirectional and will further prevent eager > mappers adding the "missing" oneway=yes tag to this cycleway. Another usecase that was presented on the list at some stage is town centers that have more oneways than not (I think the example was in Spain). In that context, oneway=no is usefull for mappers. I'm sure that most foo=default_value tags are the result of cluelessness/mishaps, but it's not always the case. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 9:36 AM, John Willis wrote: > I bet a lot of people, myself included, simply uncheck the box (making it no) > rather than the trash can to delete the tag. I bet that is where a lot of > them are coming from. This is what happened here https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2111 and here https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/pull/2117 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On Dec 29, 2014, at 3:20 AM, Andy Street wrote: >> I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, >> probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway >> key. If you mistakenly check the "one way" box on a road preset in iD, unchecking the box chafes the value to no, rather than "assumed to be no" (which is the default absence of the tag). Clicking the box again resets it to "assumed to be no" , but soce we already know the route isn't one way, I bet a lot of people, myself included, simply uncheck the box (making it no) rather than the trash can to delete the tag. I bet that is where a lot of them are coming from. I don't think people are intentionally tagging so many oneway=no, tags - it's just misunderstanding the presets. Maybe there are some situations where oneway=no is important (odd motorway situations), but I bet a ton of them are checkbox spam from iD. Javbw ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
Am 28.12.2014 um 19:20 schrieb Andy Street:. > These tags are far from "information-less" as they convey the fact that > a mapper has considered the property in question and wishes to record > that it does not apply. I'm afraid that you are kidding yourself in a big way. Nearly all massive, "I will tag everything that applies" tagging extravaganzas are due to misuse of the JOSM access preset, and have nothing at all to do with the mappers in question having the slightest idea of what they are actually doing (not to mention that the net results tend to actually be wrong). signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On Sun, 28 Dec 2014 17:01:16 +0100 Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, > probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway > key. Or perhaps due to diligent mappers? > I wonder what's next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...? If the cap fits, why not? > I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to > browse a long list of bogus tags on each object to finally spot the > one or two tags that actually matter. These tags are far from "information-less" as they convey the fact that a mapper has considered the property in question and wishes to record that it does not apply. I also dislike this idea of "tags that actually matter". Just because you might not be interested in a particular tag (or value) does not mean that it is worthless to everybody. -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
"you'd probably want to discuss that over at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues"; I thought that https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/2220 will fix this problem. 2014-12-28 17:27 GMT+01:00 SomeoneElse : > On 28/12/2014 16:01, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: > >> I think that those editors should only make , "yes" and "-1" >> selectable, or omit the "no" values on upload at last, except for >> motorways, >> motorway_links and roundabouts. >> >> I don't believe that there's yet an automatic interface between mailing > list and code, so you'd probably want to discuss that over at > https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues :-) > > However, explaining politely to the new mappers concerned what's going on > (and it is mostly new mappers) is probably more productive - a "oneway=no" > gives you something to talk about, and they'll probably have some questions > for you, too. > > Cheers, > > Andy > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
> I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably > due > to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder > what's > next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...? > > I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a > long list of bogus tags on each object to finally spot the one or two tags > that actually matter. It depends. Sometimes it is useful to add this tag. I typically add it to bidirectional cycle paths along roads as you would normally expect such cycleways to be oneway. Adding a oneway=no indicates that it has been surveyed and found to be bidirectional and will further prevent eager mappers adding the "missing" oneway=yes tag to this cycleway. But I agree that it is silly to add it to all highways in general. I occasionally see highways having long lists of obvious *=yes access tags (and some silly *=no as well such as boat=no on a highway=trunk!). > > I think that those editors should only make , "yes" and "-1" > selectable, or omit the "no" values on upload at last, except for > motorways, > motorway_links and roundabouts. A roundabout with oneway=no is not a roundabout, just a circular road. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] oneway=no spams
On 28/12/2014 16:01, Friedrich Volkmann wrote: I think that those editors should only make , "yes" and "-1" selectable, or omit the "no" values on upload at last, except for motorways, motorway_links and roundabouts. I don't believe that there's yet an automatic interface between mailing list and code, so you'd probably want to discuss that over at https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues :-) However, explaining politely to the new mappers concerned what's going on (and it is mostly new mappers) is probably more productive - a "oneway=no" gives you something to talk about, and they'll probably have some questions for you, too. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] oneway=no spams
I notice a quicky increasing number of oneway=no tags on roads, probably due to editors offering some flashy list box for the oneway key. I wonder what's next. bridge=no, tunnel=no...? I find these information-less tags annoying, because you have to browse a long list of bogus tags on each object to finally spot the one or two tags that actually matter. I think that those editors should only make , "yes" and "-1" selectable, or omit the "no" values on upload at last, except for motorways, motorway_links and roundabouts. -- Friedrich K. Volkmann http://www.volki.at/ Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
