On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 1:21 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes...but again, OpenStreetMap is a *map*, it's not just a collection of data.
I don't think this is necessarily true - or maybe I just don't know what you mean. It's a collection of meaningful data. The only thing that makes the OSM database like "a map" is the fact that the entities are associated with a latitude and longitude. > By all means, tag all this stuff, but higher-order interpretations of that > data are what *mapping* is about. Ideally, we would not invent our own > standards though, but apply existing ones. It depends what you mean by "mapping". Do you mean cartography? If so, I think that is the job of the user (e.g. renderer) moreso than the "tagger". > (Also, more pragmatically: bicycle_suitability:average is a lot easier to > tag, and doesn't require marking up every time the surface changes from > gravel to crushed limestone, or changes width from 1.6m to 1.4m. Using all > those tags would be far too fine-grained.) Ok, sure, being "easy" to tag is good, but you have to weigh it up against the disadvantages, including not being directly verifiable. If you've done this and still come to the conclusion that bicycle_suitability is better, then go for it - write up a proposal and RFC :) _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
