Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Dermot McNally schrieb: > On 3 July 2010 16:43, John Smith wrote: > >> Well please describe the objective criteria you use to tag highways then... > > Here they are: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Ireland#Highway Maybe you should mention highway=road and as you mention not to use highway=unclassified for a unknown type. Anyway this criteria seems to me to double the ref-tag with no addicional information. cu skyper ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
2010/7/3 John Smith : > On 3 July 2010 19:50, Konrad Skeri wrote: >> One possibility is to just use highway=link and then let the renderes >> sort out the rest. A link is after all just a link no matter what it > > It may not be possible for preprocessing or renderers to figure it out. > 1. Take the link that is to be rendered 2. Get the IDs of the endpoints. 3. For each endpoint get the IDs of all the ways that uses that point. 4. Render according to a table or a hierarchical rule The endpoints are two, and the number of other ways using the endpoints are not only finite but in practice limited. A rendering table, which is the most complex and detailed way to do this would be h^2 rules. (Where h is the number of recogniced highway-types. In practice you won't have this many as you probably won't have links between a service=driveway and a motorway) In any case I don't see the overall complexity exceeding O(n) and the quasi code is only 4 lines so the algorithm should be fairly straight forward and definitely possible. Where the link is split into several ways the search has to extend to the endpoint of the link connecting to the link. Konrad ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 25 June 2010 07:56, Roy Wallace wrote: > On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Lester Caine wrote: >>> >>> You could always have highway=link. >> >> But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying >> link does not work. > > highway=* > link=yes I just found a good use case for this, residential link lanes, they're always oneway=yes, lanes=1 and they probably shouldn't be named since they don't really belong to either way more than the other, so they're going to show up on noname rendering layers without a good way to exclude them. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
2010/7/3 Dermot McNally : > Our arbitrary decision is to decide whether a moderately crappy > country lane might just be significant enough to call tertiary I'd say this is up to the individual mapper / situation. It will never be possible to satisfyingly resolve this for all possible situations. > at > that level we're splitting the kinds of hairs that give talk-de such > high traffic. ;-) cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 17:09, John Smith wrote: > Meaning you are trying to make an arbitrary decision, because someone > else hasn't made it for you. Our arbitrary decision is to decide whether a moderately crappy country lane might just be significant enough to call tertiary - at that level we're splitting the kinds of hairs that give talk-de such high traffic. As such, unless it looks like this line of reasoning is going to help us resolve the subject of the thread, I don't suggest we pursue it any further. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 4 July 2010 01:56, Dermot McNally wrote: > On 3 July 2010 16:54, John Smith wrote: > >> All that has happened is the arbitrary decisions have been deferred to >> someone else, in this case some government entity... That doesn't mean >> highways are classified by objective criteria :) > > I think you need to buy a dictionary. You said it yourself: > We do have a dilemma for how to fit 3 grades of local road into > tertiary and unclassified Meaning you are trying to make an arbitrary decision, because someone else hasn't made it for you. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 16:54, John Smith wrote: > All that has happened is the arbitrary decisions have been deferred to > someone else, in this case some government entity... That doesn't mean > highways are classified by objective criteria :) I think you need to buy a dictionary. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 4 July 2010 01:47, Dermot McNally wrote: > Here they are: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Ireland#Highway > > We do have a dilemma for how to fit 3 grades of local road into > tertiary and unclassified, but the criteria are otherwise objective. All that has happened is the arbitrary decisions have been deferred to someone else, in this case some government entity... That doesn't mean highways are classified by objective criteria :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 16:43, John Smith wrote: > Well please describe the objective criteria you use to tag highways then... Here they are: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Ireland#Highway We do have a dilemma for how to fit 3 grades of local road into tertiary and unclassified, but the criteria are otherwise objective. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 4 July 2010 01:34, Dermot McNally wrote: > On 3 July 2010 14:14, John Smith wrote: >> On 3 July 2010 23:09, Dermot McNally wrote: >>> It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the >>> world have established different norms according to which they do so. >> >> By norms you mean making arbitrarily decisions on highways, rather >> than any kind of objective criteria... So this is ok under certain >> circumstances... > > By norms I mean norms. But feel free to keep telling me what I mean. Well please describe the objective criteria you use to tag highways then... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 14:14, John Smith wrote: > On 3 July 2010 23:09, Dermot McNally wrote: >> It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the >> world have established different norms according to which they do so. > > By norms you mean making arbitrarily decisions on highways, rather > than any kind of objective criteria... So this is ok under certain > circumstances... By norms I mean norms. But feel free to keep telling me what I mean. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 23:09, Dermot McNally wrote: > It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the > world have established different norms according to which they do so. By norms you mean making arbitrarily decisions on highways, rather than any kind of objective criteria... So this is ok under certain circumstances... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 12:24, John Smith wrote: > I fail to see how you have disagreed, you are twisting logic to suit > yourself, on one hand it's ok to arbitrarily tag various highway=* > tags, but on the other hand it's not ok to arbitrarily tag > highway=*_link... It's not OK to arbitrarily tag highways. But different parts of the world have established different norms according to which they do so. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 21:30, David Murn wrote: > I think any road can have a link road (trunk, primary, etc), especially > any grade-separated crossings, which dont necessarily have to be > motorway. For large intersections with separate slip-lanes, I often > mark the slip lanes as *_link, which also allows you to tag pedestrian > crossings across the link. You can do all that without needing to tag it as a *_link though, and at this stage I doubt *_link's get treated any differently, although they could be implied to mean lanes=1, oneway=yes kind of thing, but at present don't... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 20:37 +1000, John Smith wrote: > On 3 July 2010 20:35, Dermot McNally wrote: > > On 3 July 2010 11:18, John Smith wrote: > > > >> As a few people pointed out, we always tag some things for the > >> renderer, like highway=primary/secondary/etc... > > > > I disagree that this is tagging for the renderer. Rather, it is > > rendering for the tags. The highway tag assigns a role (importance, > > build quality, or whatever is considered good in the particular > > region) and the renderer presents them differently. > > Personally I don't see a point for anything but motorway_link, but > what is the difference between what you said and what others are > suggesting for other *_link roads? I think any road can have a link road (trunk, primary, etc), especially any grade-separated crossings, which dont necessarily have to be motorway. For large intersections with separate slip-lanes, I often mark the slip lanes as *_link, which also allows you to tag pedestrian crossings across the link. David > > ___ > 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] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 21:14, Dermot McNally wrote: > Firstly, I haven't suggested anything for *_link roads, I've simply > disagreed with your assertion that our use of the highway tagging > represents tagging for the renderer. On balance I tend to prefer links > that know what type of road they belong to. As noted, this is > indispensable for motorways, because: I fail to see how you have disagreed, you are twisting logic to suit yourself, on one hand it's ok to arbitrarily tag various highway=* tags, but on the other hand it's not ok to arbitrarily tag highway=*_link... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 11:37, John Smith wrote: > Personally I don't see a point for anything but motorway_link, but > what is the difference between what you said and what others are > suggesting for other *_link roads? Firstly, I haven't suggested anything for *_link roads, I've simply disagreed with your assertion that our use of the highway tagging represents tagging for the renderer. On balance I tend to prefer links that know what type of road they belong to. As noted, this is indispensable for motorways, because: * Many (most?) countries support the concept of motorway regulations and we need to mark the point from which they apply * We want our navigation apps to be able to give instructions about entering the motorway And it so happens that having that tag also does the right thing for renderers too. I think the concept works well for other road classes too - a trunk link is: * one that leads inescapably to a trunk road -or- * One that diverges from a trunk road and can only be reached by the trunk road And so on for other road classes. I'm concerned here more with access ramps - roundabout avoidance lanes and suchlike probably could, in many cases, be sufficiently catered for by a generic highway=link tag. This could be used by mappers who feel there's no obvious ownership of the link by one road or the other and renderers could be permitted to colour it according to whichever of the above-argued logics proves most compelling. But sneaky wiki changes to subvert established tagging practices one newbie at a time just isn't big or clever - so don't do that. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 20:35, Dermot McNally wrote: > On 3 July 2010 11:18, John Smith wrote: > >> As a few people pointed out, we always tag some things for the >> renderer, like highway=primary/secondary/etc... > > I disagree that this is tagging for the renderer. Rather, it is > rendering for the tags. The highway tag assigns a role (importance, > build quality, or whatever is considered good in the particular > region) and the renderer presents them differently. Personally I don't see a point for anything but motorway_link, but what is the difference between what you said and what others are suggesting for other *_link roads? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 11:18, John Smith wrote: > As a few people pointed out, we always tag some things for the > renderer, like highway=primary/secondary/etc... I disagree that this is tagging for the renderer. Rather, it is rendering for the tags. The highway tag assigns a role (importance, build quality, or whatever is considered good in the particular region) and the renderer presents them differently. Dermot -- -- Iren sind menschlich ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 3 July 2010 19:50, Konrad Skeri wrote: > One possibility is to just use highway=link and then let the renderes > sort out the rest. A link is after all just a link no matter what it It may not be possible for preprocessing or renderers to figure it out. > connects, so there's really no reason for a *_link except when tagging > for the renderer, which we shouldn't do. As a few people pointed out, we always tag some things for the renderer, like highway=primary/secondary/etc... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
One possibility is to just use highway=link and then let the renderes sort out the rest. A link is after all just a link no matter what it connects, so there's really no reason for a *_link except when tagging for the renderer, which we shouldn't do. Konrad 2010/6/25 Lester Caine : > M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>> >>> > highway=* >>> > link=yes >> >> actually I like this, but it's not the first time it is proposed here, >> and I think you can hardly change tags used as often and for so long >> time as this. It would probably end up in a similar mess than path and >> footway. > > A number of the 'base' decisions would now make a lot more sense done a > different way, but at the time there were very good reasons for choices > then. With the amount of additional data now being handled, adding even more > tags for some of the old basics while possible would just cause agro > everywhere. Exactly as we now have in things like path. > > I don't know where the discussion on virtual tags got to? These are tags > built from finer detail when using the data from a lower resolution. In this > case of highway=x, link=yes would return the single tag highway=x_link and > applications that do not need to bother with any other tags can carry on > working happily with just the highway tag ... > > -- > Lester Caine - G8HFL > - > Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/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 > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: > highway=* > link=yes actually I like this, but it's not the first time it is proposed here, and I think you can hardly change tags used as often and for so long time as this. It would probably end up in a similar mess than path and footway. A number of the 'base' decisions would now make a lot more sense done a different way, but at the time there were very good reasons for choices then. With the amount of additional data now being handled, adding even more tags for some of the old basics while possible would just cause agro everywhere. Exactly as we now have in things like path. I don't know where the discussion on virtual tags got to? These are tags built from finer detail when using the data from a lower resolution. In this case of highway=x, link=yes would return the single tag highway=x_link and applications that do not need to bother with any other tags can carry on working happily with just the highway tag ... -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/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] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 25 June 2010 16:10, Ed Avis wrote: > I think you misunderstand my proposal. I agree that is_in is redundant and > should not be added to the map. As you say, it can be derived from admin > boundaries. However, not every programmer might want to have to download all > the admin boundaries and work out what is in what. Conceivably, it might help > some applications if there were an option for the server to automatically add > is_in tags, generated from admin boundaries, when some map XML is downloaded. > That way the code to work it out only has to be written once. You are talking about pre-processing, that is taking the data and manipulating it and then doing something in another app with it, and this isn't something that has to be done with OSM directly, or even at all. > A road could appear as a dead end because of bad mapping - but then anything > else > on the map could also be bad mapping rather than reality. Anyway it's just an > example. I doubt you can make an assumption of a dead end, it might be a mapping mistake, or a way that hasn't been surveyed completely. > True, but if a way is tagged highway=steps or slope=yes, it's a pretty safe > bet > that going from layer 0 to 1 is uphill, and 1 to 0 is downhill. Even though > in > theory there is nothing to guarantee that. (And if elevation is tagged, > uphill > and downhill markers can be deduced for certain.) Most layer tags apply to bridges, not to steps because they don't go over the top of anything else. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:10:18 + (UTC), Ed Avis wrote: > John Smith gmail.com> writes: > > >>and uphill/downhill for slopes (based on the layer of the endpoints). > > > >Layer has nothing to do with elevation, it only indicates which road > >goes over the other road there may not be any slope involved. > > True, but if a way is tagged highway=steps or slope=yes, it's a pretty safe > bet that going from layer 0 to 1 is uphill, and 1 to 0 is downhill. Even > though in theory there is nothing to guarantee that. Not only theory. Suppose you have a downhill highway=steps intersecting some other thing below. It's up to the mapper whether to tag this "thing" layer=-1 or to break the highway=steps and tag the middle segment layer=1. With your example, instead of the reality, you'd be ending up with an up followed by a down. layer=* is just really for the rendering, and shouldn't be used for anything else. > (And if elevation is tagged, uphill and downhill markers can be deduced for > certain.) Yes, that is the only safe tag. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
John Smith gmail.com> writes: [proposal for 'virtual tags' generated automatically] >>As well as taking care of the different kinds of > link road, these could also provide 'is_in', 'leading_to' and 'dead_end' for > >dead_end can't be guessed at, it could be bad mapping, is_in is >redundant, you can use admin boundaries to derive this. I think you misunderstand my proposal. I agree that is_in is redundant and should not be added to the map. As you say, it can be derived from admin boundaries. However, not every programmer might want to have to download all the admin boundaries and work out what is in what. Conceivably, it might help some applications if there were an option for the server to automatically add is_in tags, generated from admin boundaries, when some map XML is downloaded. That way the code to work it out only has to be written once. A road could appear as a dead end because of bad mapping - but then anything else on the map could also be bad mapping rather than reality. Anyway it's just an example. >>and uphill/downhill for slopes (based on the layer of the endpoints). > >Layer has nothing to do with elevation, it only indicates which road >goes over the other road there may not be any slope involved. True, but if a way is tagged highway=steps or slope=yes, it's a pretty safe bet that going from layer 0 to 1 is uphill, and 1 to 0 is downhill. Even though in theory there is nothing to guarantee that. (And if elevation is tagged, uphill and downhill markers can be deduced for certain.) -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
2010/6/24 Roy Wallace : > highway=* > link=yes actually I like this, but it's not the first time it is proposed here, and I think you can hardly change tags used as often and for so long time as this. It would probably end up in a similar mess than path and footway. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Lester Caine wrote: >> >> You could always have highway=link. > > But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying link > does not work. highway=* link=yes ? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > Anthony wrote: >> >> You could always have highway=link. >> > But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying > link does not work. I guess, but now you're using a different definition of *_link. Not "tag-for-higher" nor "tag-for-lower", but "tag-based-on-the-rules". That's excellent if we can come up with some good definitions for what those rules are. > But IMO, it's not a big enough deal to bother changing. >> > There is a lot of good detail already mapped that does not need changing. > Just using as it was intended. Right now the definition of motorway_link is a link road between a motorway and another road. There's no mention of a requirement that the road be subject to "motorway rules". And whether or not the link road is connected to a motorway is something that is inherent in the nodes/ways themselves. So there's no detail which wouldn't be given by highway=link. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Anthony wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Lester Caine mailto:les...@lsces.co.uk>> wrote: Ed Avis wrote: Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a primary to a secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags for the two roads it connects. In principle there is no need to duplicate the information. But how do you know that a way IS a slip from one road to another, and not just another road? You could always have highway=link. But some links ARE motorway rules and some ARE trunk road so just saying link does not work. But IMO, it's not a big enough deal to bother changing. There is a lot of good detail already mapped that does not need changing. Just using as it was intended. -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/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] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Lester Caine wrote: > Ed Avis wrote: > >> Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a primary to a >> secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags for the >> two >> roads it connects. In principle there is no need to duplicate the >> information. >> > > But how do you know that a way IS a slip from one road to another, and not > just another road? You could always have highway=link. But IMO, it's not a big enough deal to bother changing. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 25 June 2010 02:59, Ed Avis wrote: > download a section of map. As well as taking care of the different kinds of > link road, these could also provide 'is_in', 'leading_to' and 'dead_end' for dead_end can't be guessed at, it could be bad mapping, is_in is redundant, you can use admin boundaries to derive this. > streets, and uphill/downhill for slopes (based on the layer of the endpoints). Layer has nothing to do with elevation, it only indicates which road goes over the other road there may not be any slope involved. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Ed Avis wrote: Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a primary to a secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags for the two roads it connects. In principle there is no need to duplicate the information. But how do you know that a way IS a slip from one road to another, and not just another road? Tag it motorway when it goes to another motorway where is the division between motorway and slip road. It needs something to identify the situation on the ground! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/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] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Isn't this tagging redundant? If a link road leads from a primary to a secondary, or whatever, this can be seen by looking at the tags for the two roads it connects. In principle there is no need to duplicate the information. In practice a renderer such as Mapnik may not allow you to write such complex rules, and doing so would complicate its code. As a blue-sky idea, we could have 'virtual tags' which are generated by the server automatically when you download a section of map. As well as taking care of the different kinds of link road, these could also provide 'is_in', 'leading_to' and 'dead_end' for streets, and uphill/downhill for slopes (based on the layer of the endpoints). Some simple query language would define such virtual tags and new ones could be added if an application finds them useful. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 24 Jun 2010, at 5:24 , Richard Mann wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote: >> the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in >> the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you >> dislike. > > What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering? > then the rendering is completely broken and doesn't deserve a special tag. all the commercial maps render links much smaller and on lowest layer. > If there's a serious reason for tag-to-higher then we can add an > additional tag so people can record the status of what it links to > (and then we can render it any way we like). But I can't think of a > sensible reason for recording/using the higher status, except for > motorways, so it just seems like it's been copied from motorway_link > without thinking it through, is producing unintended results, and is > therefore an error that needs to be corrected. > from a rendering point of view this shouldn't matter at all. as said above rendering is ugly for *_link > If people have done that thinking through, and there's a genuine > reason for tag-to-higher for non-motorway roads, then I'd love to hear > about it. All the reaction so far seems to be a complaint about how I > did it, rather than the substance of the matter. > > Andy's made one of the few moderately serious points: it's confusing > to treat them differently to motorway links. Not exactly a clincher, > if it's wrong for other reasons. > consistency is more important to avoid confusion than an absolute statement. as others pointed out ramps to/from motorways and most likely on trunks are in the same jurisdiction and maintained by same agency as the motorway/trunk. So there is a clear evidence that *_link belongs to the higher road it connects to. > Richard Mann > > ___ > 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] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
2010/6/24 Andy Allan : > views or oppose them, but certainly the main point of this discussion > is that should we want to change it you can't just change the wiki and > declare it done! I completely agree to this and think it also applies to many other wiki edits. Sadly, as these edits create new confusion and problems especially for new users who are not yet familiar with a) the tag system and b) the fact that wiki pages sometimes get changed against the common sense of mapping. cheers, Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > You need to explain, without referring to renderering *at any point in > the discussion* why your solution is both conceptually better than > what we have, and why your solution is worth all the hassle and > confusion that such a change would cause. So far, I see nothing > approaching the required level. There is no reason. Tag-to-lower is only of benefit to the renderer. Tag-to-higher is only for the benefit of the renderer. We'll have to go with a supplementary tag then. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 25 June 2010 00:22, David Paleino wrote: > And I still haven't read why you think this is better, apart from rendering > issues. > > As Andy said, the burden of demonstrating the goodness of a change is up to > who > wants to make that change. I've been following this thread and I've seen the back and forth, but the argument for/against routing seems pointless because *_link roads aren't usually very long so I can't see how it would effect anything. Same goes for rendering, regardless who wins this debate the other side will just end up tagging how they think things should be rendered. I can see a point for motorway_links, these are a specific sort of road, but the same thing does hold true for other roads, unless they were simply meant to imply oneway=yes, lanes=1 kind of thing, but I doubt they're currently rendered in that way. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Richard Mann wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Andy Allan wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Richard Mann >> wrote: >>> What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering? >> >> They can be used by routers to give more accurate descriptions... > That's a reason for calling them links, not a reason for tag-to-higher Which, if you look closely, was actually the question you asked me. >> http://osm.org/go/0...@c9as- > Could equally well be tertiary_link. Oh. I see. Good discussion, I'm totally convinced by your reasoning. >> As I say though, it's a well used and well established scheme, and we >> should be very wary of changing it just because of some edge cases >> where the rendering doesn't work correctly or where a particular >> junction seems bizarrely tagged. > > I don't think this is robust to non-geek rendering (which I think is > going to kick off fairly soon). People are going to start rendering > their towns, and tag-for-higher (and the normal renderer's response of > putting links under everything) just produces too much of a mess, too > often. People will find ways round it (like ignoring the wiki), but > it's better to solve the issue, and issue rendering advice that'll > actually work most of the time. Solving the issue would be to fix the renderers for the edge cases you are so interested it. > I'm more than happy for the wiki to say that tag-for-higher was the > norm for a long time and you need to be aware that it will remain in > the data for a long time. But tag-for-lower is better. Tag-for-higher *is still* the norm, and certainly isn't going to change just because there's a few artefacts here and there in some of the renderers. Nor is it going to change just because you want it to. You need to explain, without referring to renderering *at any point in the discussion* why your solution is both conceptually better than what we have, and why your solution is worth all the hassle and confusion that such a change would cause. So far, I see nothing approaching the required level. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:09:11 +0100, Richard Mann wrote: > [..] But tag-for-lower is better. And I still haven't read why you think this is better, apart from rendering issues. As Andy said, the burden of demonstrating the goodness of a change is up to who wants to make that change. -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Andy Allan wrote: They can be used by routers to give more accurate descriptions - e.g. since we don't (yet) indicate junction priorities, it can be helpful if you are on a *_link and going onto a * to announce it as "join the main carriageway". If it was e.g. just highway=trunk for both, the router wouldn't know you were on a slip road. Same for when you are approaching an exit, it's a nice hint to the router that you aren't following the main carriageway. And if you don't have the *_link, then there needs to be a replacement tag to provide that information! Although it should be possible to identify links between different road types, some will still be 'motorway' while others are slip roads and so join or leave. It is more difficult to decided what is going on where the slip roads are between one motorway and another, or motorway and a major trunk road. THESE needs to be specifically identified, and we had this discussion some years ago when the *_link tags were added! -- Lester Caine - G8HFL - Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/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] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Richard Mann > wrote: >> What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering? > > They can be used by routers to give more accurate descriptions... That's a reason for calling them links, not a reason for tag-to-higher > http://osm.org/go/0...@c9as- Could equally well be tertiary_link. OS would have them as tertiary_link (my Landranger still has it as a flat junction!) > As I say though, it's a well used and well established scheme, and we > should be very wary of changing it just because of some edge cases > where the rendering doesn't work correctly or where a particular > junction seems bizarrely tagged. I don't think this is robust to non-geek rendering (which I think is going to kick off fairly soon). People are going to start rendering their towns, and tag-for-higher (and the normal renderer's response of putting links under everything) just produces too much of a mess, too often. People will find ways round it (like ignoring the wiki), but it's better to solve the issue, and issue rendering advice that'll actually work most of the time. I'm more than happy for the wiki to say that tag-for-higher was the norm for a long time and you need to be aware that it will remain in the data for a long time. But tag-for-lower is better. Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Richard Mann wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote: >> the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in >> the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you >> dislike. > > What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering? They can be used by routers to give more accurate descriptions - e.g. since we don't (yet) indicate junction priorities, it can be helpful if you are on a *_link and going onto a * to announce it as "join the main carriageway". If it was e.g. just highway=trunk for both, the router wouldn't know you were on a slip road. Same for when you are approaching an exit, it's a nice hint to the router that you aren't following the main carriageway. > If there's a serious reason for tag-to-higher then we can add an > additional tag so people can record the status of what it links to > (and then we can render it any way we like). But I can't think of a > sensible reason for recording/using the higher status, except for > motorways, so it just seems like it's been copied from motorway_link > without thinking it through, is producing unintended results, and is > therefore an error that needs to be corrected. There might be some edge cases, such as the one you previously linked to. But let's take this one near Cambridge: http://osm.org/go/0...@c9as- I think the slip roads on/off the trunk road dual carriageway are quite rightly tagged as trunk_link. It is very little different from the case of a normal motorway junction. If you had to choose whether those slip roads were part of the trunk road or of the secondary road crossing over it, I would think most people would go for trunk. And I suspect the facts on the ground would lean that way, when it comes to resurfacing, signage, speed limits, lane width, type of tarmac and so on, that the slip roads are more likely considered part of the trunk road. As I say though, it's a well used and well established scheme, and we should be very wary of changing it just because of some edge cases where the rendering doesn't work correctly or where a particular junction seems bizarrely tagged. > If people have done that thinking through, and there's a genuine > reason for tag-to-higher for non-motorway roads, then I'd love to hear > about it. All the reaction so far seems to be a complaint about how I > did it, rather than the substance of the matter. I think few people have expressed whether or not they support your views or oppose them, but certainly the main point of this discussion is that should we want to change it you can't just change the wiki and declare it done! > Andy's made one of the few moderately serious points: it's confusing > to treat them differently to motorway links. Not exactly a clincher, > if it's wrong for other reasons. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in > the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you > dislike. What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering? If there's a serious reason for tag-to-higher then we can add an additional tag so people can record the status of what it links to (and then we can render it any way we like). But I can't think of a sensible reason for recording/using the higher status, except for motorways, so it just seems like it's been copied from motorway_link without thinking it through, is producing unintended results, and is therefore an error that needs to be corrected. If people have done that thinking through, and there's a genuine reason for tag-to-higher for non-motorway roads, then I'd love to hear about it. All the reaction so far seems to be a complaint about how I did it, rather than the substance of the matter. Andy's made one of the few moderately serious points: it's confusing to treat them differently to motorway links. Not exactly a clincher, if it's wrong for other reasons. Richard Mann ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
I believe this junction is tagged as per the wiki (which Andy kindly reverted to it's previous state). http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.73915&lon=-1.10389&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF Here's the same junction as per the cycle map layer: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.73915&lon=-1.10389&zoom=15&layers=00B0FTF Clearly the tagging is just perfect and the renderers are perfect and the wiki is perfect, and it's all been wonderful for ever and nothing needs to be improved [/rant] Richard Mann ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Mann wrote: > Well that got more of a reaction than floating a discussion on the > tagging list, didn't it? The tagging list was set up so that the main > list wouldn't be bothered with such stuff. The tagging list was set up to save us all from the discussions surrounding tagging proposals and other minutiae of tagging discussions. Actions such as attempting to redefine the meaning of some of the most widely used tags in the entire project is, too put it mildly, outside the scope of that mailing list. > There's half a dozen unresolved items in trac, because the Mapnik > rules don't work, so you end up with gaps in casings where there > shouldn't be, and lower class roads rendered on top of higher class > link roads. It's significantly important to separate any complaints that you have with rendering from discussions on tagging. I have no interest in whether there are rendering artefacts such as gaps in casings in the current mapnik stylesheets. We have been using the given definitions of the tags since long before mapnik even existed! > So clearly not such a big issue that the talk list should be bothered with > it... There's a million random discussions in a dozen venues in the project. Simply because this particular discussion went almost unnoticed can't possibly be construed as a green-light to reverse the meaning of these tags. > So I look at the issue, consider the alternative rendering options > (links interwoven, links at bottom, motorway_links treated > differently), look at some commercial maps and see how they do it. And > come to the conclusion that the wiki is telling me to do something > wrong. So I change the wiki to give, in a succinct fashion, what I > think is the best advice for going forward, and one that's only likely > to improve matters. Clearly no-one's that much bothered, so it's a > small service to study the matter and write it up. Onwards and upwards > to better data and maps... You didn't really give "the best advice", you just decided that you knew better than everyone else, and made a change that affects 15,000 other mappers, hundreds of renderings and subprojects. A little more "due process" would be in order. > If there's a decent argument for tag-to-higher for roads between > trunk-tertiary, other than "we've always done it that way", let's hear > it. Preferably on the tagging list. The obligation on those who wish to change the meaning of such widely used tags is *entirely* on those who wish to make the change. You can't take an absence of discussion (given that many people have many more pressing issues to deal with) as consent for your change, nor demand that others need to justify *not* making such drastic changes. Especially since the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you dislike. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Well that got more of a reaction than floating a discussion on the tagging list, didn't it? The tagging list was set up so that the main list wouldn't be bothered with such stuff. There was no debate on the wiki, except a brief comment that presumably resulted in the tag-to-higher approach (from chriscf...), and another old comment that said the opposite. There's half a dozen unresolved items in trac, because the Mapnik rules don't work, so you end up with gaps in casings where there shouldn't be, and lower class roads rendered on top of higher class link roads. So clearly not such a big issue that the talk list should be bothered with it... So I look at the issue, consider the alternative rendering options (links interwoven, links at bottom, motorway_links treated differently), look at some commercial maps and see how they do it. And come to the conclusion that the wiki is telling me to do something wrong. So I change the wiki to give, in a succinct fashion, what I think is the best advice for going forward, and one that's only likely to improve matters. Clearly no-one's that much bothered, so it's a small service to study the matter and write it up. Onwards and upwards to better data and maps... Fortunately I have a thick hide. If there's a decent argument for tag-to-higher for roads between trunk-tertiary, other than "we've always done it that way", let's hear it. Preferably on the tagging list. Richard Mann On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, James Livingston > wrote: > >> You could argue that it's wikifiddling in an attempt to influence how people >> map, or that it's documenting how a lot of people already map. It's all a >> matter of perspective. > > If it was "documenting how a lot of people map" then it would say > there were two ways of doing it. This is clearly not the case, since > it was just arbitrarily changed. It's not a "matter of perspective". > >> I, and from what I see in use where I live quite a few other too, have >> always used xxx_link tags to join a highway=xxx with a higher one, because >> we think what was documented on the wiki (xxx_link joins highway=xxx with a >> lower one) is silly. > > So you're saying there's two ways to do it. One has been established > since forever, and is what almost everyone does (*_link is the higher > of the two joined roads). The other way, which a small number of > people use specifically because they don't like how the main method > renders, is complex and completely daft (link is the lower of the two > joined roads, except for motorway links, which are higher, and trunk > links, which are only permitted between two roads of the same level). > Right. > > I'd advise you started tagging using a more sensible, well established > scheme. And to realise that if you want to change the scheme, that's > an entirely different thing that can't be accomplished by changing the > wiki and then claiming it's valid. > > Cheers, > Andy > > ___ > 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] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:16 PM, James Livingston wrote: > You could argue that it's wikifiddling in an attempt to influence how people > map, or that it's documenting how a lot of people already map. It's all a > matter of perspective. If it was "documenting how a lot of people map" then it would say there were two ways of doing it. This is clearly not the case, since it was just arbitrarily changed. It's not a "matter of perspective". > I, and from what I see in use where I live quite a few other too, have always > used xxx_link tags to join a highway=xxx with a higher one, because we think > what was documented on the wiki (xxx_link joins highway=xxx with a lower one) > is silly. So you're saying there's two ways to do it. One has been established since forever, and is what almost everyone does (*_link is the higher of the two joined roads). The other way, which a small number of people use specifically because they don't like how the main method renders, is complex and completely daft (link is the lower of the two joined roads, except for motorway links, which are higher, and trunk links, which are only permitted between two roads of the same level). Right. I'd advise you started tagging using a more sensible, well established scheme. And to realise that if you want to change the scheme, that's an entirely different thing that can't be accomplished by changing the wiki and then claiming it's valid. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 9:16 AM, James Livingston wrote: > I, and from what I see in use where I live quite a few other too, have > always used xxx_link tags to join a highway=xxx with a higher one, because > we think what was documented on the wiki (xxx_link joins highway=xxx with a > lower one) is silly. > So what's a motorway_link? I've always assumed motorway_link joined a motorway with something less than a motorway. Perhaps this is jurisdiction-specific, though. Where I've lived, the offramp of a highway is under the jurisdiction of the highway (offramp of a state highway is policed by state troopers, not county police). So an offramp of a motorway would be, I'd assume, a motorway_link (if not motorway), not a primary_link. In fact, if I hadn't seen that there was a such thing as motorway_link, I'd probably tag them as motorway. If this is something which is opposite in other jurisdictions, that definitely would be a consideration we'd need to address. Of course, highway=* tags are already jurisdiction-specific. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
IMHO the tag should contain information from what to what the link is (like between redidential and secondary, fron tertiary to primary, etc ...), so renderers can properly decide how much important the link to primary is - it is probably more impornant if it connects to another primary than case when it connects just to some residential road. Even then we would have complicated cases with some spaghetti junctions where roads of many types connect together and now you don't know how to tag. I think it could be solved by some "link_to" tag, so for primary_link connecting from primary to tertiary you will have highway=primary_link + link_to=tertiary (and basically it could be the same as highway=tertiary_link + link_to=primary - both will be connection between primary and tertiary) Renderers could then make better decisions how to draw stuff if they know type of "both ends" of highway link. Martin ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 23/06/2010, at 8:56 PM, Andy Allan wrote: > Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's > just that the wiki is now wrong. The easy way to fix the situation is > to correct the wiki - it's as straightforward as that. You could argue the wiki is now wrong, but you could argue the wiki is now right too. Just because the wiki previously said "X or lower" previously doesn't mean it was correct. I, and from what I see in use where I live quite a few other too, have always used xxx_link tags to join a highway=xxx with a higher one, because we think what was documented on the wiki (xxx_link joins highway=xxx with a lower one) is silly. > Many of us refer to this kind of activity as "wikifiddling", or the > counter-productive deliberate insertion of false statements onto the > wiki in an attempt to influence the real world. You could argue that it's wikifiddling in an attempt to influence how people map, or that it's documenting how a lot of people already map. It's all a matter of perspective. Short of a tagging dictator, how do we decide which camp wins the argument? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
> > > Having a wiki is great but the 'anyone can edit' model is not good for > pages > > that are meant to be authoritative, > > Luckily we don't have authoritative pages in OSM. > I don't know about luckily, but yeah. For data to be maximally useful, it needs to be well-defined. Instead of trying to create authoritative wiki pages, we must make it > clear to everyone that these pages are *not* authoritative. The wiki reflects life, which reflects the wiki, which reflects life, which reflect the wiki... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Frederik Ramm remote.org> writes: >Instead of trying to create authoritative wiki pages, we must make it >clear to everyone that these pages are *not* authoritative. Right. This is the alternative I alluded to: accept that the meaning of tags is not reliably documented anywhere. To the newcomer, it appears that the web pages on the openstreetmap.org site are the project's official documentation. You then get a bit of a shock when you try to file bugs, edit the map or post to the mailing list using the pages as documentation, only to be told that 'random people on the wiki' do not determine the correct way to tag things. As others before me have said, it's a mess. If we accept that the wiki is not authoritative then we could carry this to its logical conclusion by moving it to a different domain and not linking to it from the main osm site. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Instead of trying to create authoritative wiki pages, we must make it > clear to everyone that these pages are *not* authoritative. > > Not more neither less than Potlatch and JOSM presets... Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Ed, Ed Avis wrote: > Having a wiki is great but the 'anyone can edit' model is not good for pages > that are meant to be authoritative, Luckily we don't have authoritative pages in OSM. > So maybe the current somewhat chaotic situation is the best we can hope for. Yes, the solution is encouraging people to use brains as well as other sources of information, where applicable. Everyone must understand that there is no authority in OSM and no authoritative tag guideline - but if you communicate with your peers in mapping then you'll get things done. Instead of trying to create authoritative wiki pages, we must make it clear to everyone that these pages are *not* authoritative. Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Having a wiki is great but the 'anyone can edit' model is not good for pages that are meant to be authoritative, documenting the meaning of tags in use, or giving best practice for new editors. Allowing instant changes to specification documents by any user makes about as much sense as allowing anyone to change the Potlatch code immediately. Of course you can get the source to Potlatch and change it, but your changes must be accepted by the maintainer before they go live on the site. Perhaps the tag documentation pages should be protected somehow, with changes proposed in the Discussion section before a group of maintainers accepts them into the main copy. The difficulty with this is finding those willing and suitable to act as maintainers, and avoiding Wikipedia-like power struggles. So maybe the current somewhat chaotic situation is the best we can hope for. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 21:35:46 +1000, John Smith wrote: > On 23 June 2010 21:29, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper > >> rights to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and > >> file bugs where needed. > > > > What are these "proper rights" to which you refer? The page isn't locked > > so any wiki user has the right to change it. > > Perhaps he meant the person that changed it in the first place... Exactly :) (sorry for not being clearer) -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 23 June 2010 21:29, Tom Hughes wrote: >> I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper rights >> to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and file bugs >> where needed. > > What are these "proper rights" to which you refer? The page isn't locked > so any wiki user has the right to change it. Perhaps he meant the person that changed it in the first place... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ed Avis wrote: > Andy Allan gmail.com> writes: > >>Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's >>just that the wiki is now wrong. > > Maybe we need some place to document the meaning of tags other than the > (clearly unreliable) wiki? > > Either that or accept that the meaning is not reliably documented anywhere, > which doesn't seem very satisfactory. I've considered such things (as have many other people over the years) but it keeps coming back to the issue that the wiki is where vast numbers of people are going to go, and so it's more important that the wiki is correct than to have any secondary "better" system. The problem is that the people who have axes to grind, and those who are genuinely trying to help in a misguided way, are drawn towards the most important pages. I've taken the approach over the years that if the non-contentious stuff can be held to an accurate, well-written standard then the rest will slowly follow. I also believe that there's not enough "meta" pages on the wiki, such as guidelines extolling the virtues of being factual. It's also about having faith in the community that we can deal with different people and end up working together. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On 23/06/10 12:14, David Paleino wrote: > I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper rights > to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and file bugs > where needed. What are these "proper rights" to which you refer? The page isn't locked so any wiki user has the right to change it. This is OSM so there is no "executive in charge of road tagging" that is going to come along and declare the edit officially wrong and revert it for you. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Andy Allan gmail.com> writes: >Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's >just that the wiki is now wrong. Maybe we need some place to document the meaning of tags other than the (clearly unreliable) wiki? Either that or accept that the meaning is not reliably documented anywhere, which doesn't seem very satisfactory. -- Ed Avis ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:56:29 +0100, Andy Allan wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > Hello people, > > does someone know the reasoning behind: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 > > > > ? > > > > It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database, > > and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With this change, only > > highway=*_link connecting the same class of roads have the same meaning as > > before. > > Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's > just that the wiki is now wrong. The easy way to fix the situation is > to correct the wiki - it's as straightforward as that. I *am* worried. While I (and you) know what is the correct way to tag those things, newbies don't, and they may start tagging things the wrong way. I'm not going to start an edit-war, I'd prefer someone with the proper rights to revert that edit. Then we can start discussing the matter, and file bugs where needed. > Many of us refer to this kind of activity as "wikifiddling", or the > counter-productive deliberate insertion of false statements onto the > wiki in an attempt to influence the real world. It should really be the opposite. > It continues to be a widespread problem, mainly derived from the use of the > wiki as a decision-making mechanism instead of (as it should be first and > foremost) a place to collaboratively document facts. I agree, but we don't have a "WIKIFIDDLING" label near each problematic edit, nor a way to detect it :) With that edit, it seems like the "fact" is what Richard wrote; this confuses people. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
David Paleino wrote: > [...] it seems like that was a unilateral decision made by Richard. > [...] Richard says "I think the wiki may be wrong" > [...] Richard, please don't take this as a personal attack :) For the avoidance of doubt I should perhaps point out that this is another Richard. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Changed-highway-link-meaning-tp5211033p5212736.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:08 PM, David Paleino wrote: > Hello people, > does someone know the reasoning behind: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 > > ? > > It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database, > and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With this change, only > highway=*_link connecting the same class of roads have the same meaning as > before. Don't worry, it hasn't actually changed the meaning of anything - it's just that the wiki is now wrong. The easy way to fix the situation is to correct the wiki - it's as straightforward as that. Many of us refer to this kind of activity as "wikifiddling", or the counter-productive deliberate insertion of false statements onto the wiki in an attempt to influence the real world. It continues to be a widespread problem, mainly derived from the use of the wiki as a decision-making mechanism instead of (as it should be first and foremost) a place to collaboratively document facts. Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 22:27:27 -0400, Anthony wrote: > On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, David Paleino wrote: > > > Hello people, > > does someone know the reasoning behind: > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 > > > > ? > > http://www.mail-archive.com/tagg...@openstreetmap.org/msg02653.html Reading the whole thread up to that mail, it seems like that was a unilateral decision made by Richard. Can we *please* revert it, and discuss it also _here_? It's a change of some relevance, it's not one of those discussions whether something is amenity=cafe or amenity=bar. Personally, I agree with http://www.mail-archive.com/tagg...@openstreetmap.org/msg02655.html , and I've always mapped like that. The change mad^Wproposed doesn't have a solid base, it seems done just to make the renderer happy. While point 2) in Richard's mail seems the correct solution to me. Also, in http://www.mail-archive.com/tagg...@openstreetmap.org/msg02634.html , Richard says "I think the wiki may be wrong" and he changed it because: "This is most likely to avoid the situation where you get an ugly join between ways.". Then again, "I've adopted the OS convention (everything to the lower level) locally, because it renders better.". This is mapping for the rendering. You all know our mantra, right? I'm personally very upset by this wiki hija^Wedit, it just confuses people (as seen on talk-it@, which lead me to start this thread here), and hasn't been properly discussed with the community before. Richard, please don't take this as a personal attack :). I'm just against mapping for the renderer, and your change is both poorly reasoned and a bit "impractical" to fix (one should write a both analyzing all *_link and checking what streets they connect to.. I have headaches only thinking at the code it would require) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 6:08 PM, David Paleino wrote: > Hello people, > does someone know the reasoning behind: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 > > ? > http://www.mail-archive.com/tagg...@openstreetmap.org/msg02653.html > I can't find any discussion about those tags on t...@. And no, I haven't > checked whether it's been discussed in the tagging mailing list, but > changes of > this importance should be given ample diffusion, and announced everywhere > (and > you can't expect everyone to be subscribed to the tagging mailing list). > And > talk@ is one of the minimum requirements, IMHO. Agreed. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
David Paleino wrote: >Hello people, >does someone know the reasoning behind: > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 > >? Looking through his recent edits, I see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Tag:highway%3Dmotorway_link#Links_between_non-motorway_roads . I've responded there. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Hello people, does someone know the reasoning behind: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 ? It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database, and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With this change, only highway=*_link connecting the same class of roads have the same meaning as before. I can't find any discussion about those tags on t...@. And no, I haven't checked whether it's been discussed in the tagging mailing list, but changes of this importance should be given ample diffusion, and announced everywhere (and you can't expect everyone to be subscribed to the tagging mailing list). And talk@ is one of the minimum requirements, IMHO. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!
Hello people, does someone know the reasoning behind: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Map_Features:highway&diff=490719&oldid=485601 ? It changed the meaning of almost all highway=*_link present in our database, and the comment given doesn't explain the reason. With this change, only highway=*_link connecting the same class of roads have the same meaning as before. I can't find any discussion about those tags on t...@. And no, I haven't checked whether it's been discussed in the tagging mailing list, but changes of this importance should be given ample diffusion, and announced everywhere (and you can't expect everyone to be subscribed to the tagging mailing list). And talk@ is one of the minimum requirements, IMHO. David -- . ''`. Debian developer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://deb.li/dapal `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
