@ Andre, Nounours, welcome to a project without goals. If you want to change the things you're writing about, then you're most welcome to join the Future Group http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Future
Cheers, Johan 2014-03-30 22:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard <[email protected]>: > On 2014-03-29 14:13, SomeoneElse wrote : > > On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote: > > As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for > specific service tags to make them offical. > > > Not really - OSM doesn't have "official" tags. It has "commonly used" > ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things, > but a lack of interest in a "proposal" is a pretty good indicator that, er, > no one is actually interested. > > If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then map > it! If you think people are using different tags to express what is > essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people to see if it is > the same concept or if there are nuances that anyone is missing. Please > don't expect people who have no knowledge of the real-world concept that > you're trying to capture to be able to offer a useful opinion. > > Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars to > forbidden places or through mud (1) or hikers on a 5 km useless detour, > that makes people laugh at OSM users, that makes OSM taggers laugh at > themselves and laugh at me when I say that routing is a prominent > application of OSM. That disparages OSM as a whole. > Different features have different degrees of importance. Mapping every > details like trees and their species is adorning and less important. But > mapping the features that tourists look for like Nounours wants to do or > road hazards, especially to spare a child's life while looking for the > features, like I want to do are important, and both are disregarded. > I have tried to show that renting is akin to selling, that they fit in the > same framework, that if you have car renting defined and you want to > support boat renting too, you almost just add the word "boat" to the > framework (like reusing an object in object oriented programming) and that > this lessens the fuss of voting new propositions. No one seems interested. > I also had rendering problems. In the same reasoning vein, I suggested to > use object oriented like generic rendering (e.g. landuse=leisure) that > would be used if no particular rendering exists > (leisure:miniature_golf=yes). Such frameworks tend to have everybody think > in the same direction. No interest. > If you look at (random cases) associatedStreet relation or addr:country=*, > some discussions will say that you should not use it and other discussions > will say that you should, but the wiki is mute about that or almost. The > reasoning about addr:country can be found under is_in=* which is an older > alternative but none of them points to each other and it's not said that > addr:country is better that is_in=* because it shows that the name is a > country. In conclusion, half of the taggers will do it one way and half the > other way. And as the discussions say that one of the ways is not supported > by all data consumers, half of the tagging won't work for that consumer. > What about everybody doing the same thing so that the consumer did the job > only once, whichever way it is? > > Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the taggers > will tag each their own way and data consumers will not understand it and > it will have been tagged in vain. It is true that some cases are less > strict than others but the problem is that many taggers have a tendency to > make no difference and tag everything à la Picasso. > > Last but not least, I think we forgot to thank Nounours deeply for the > work he does. Or tries to do. > > Cheers, > > André. > (1) I had found (with Osmand too) and corrected several similar GPS > routing tagging mistakes (there are many) and I was wondering why the same > mistakes repeat over and over again. Then I found that the same mistake > existed in my country's national wiki instructions!!! I put that right, > but I was told off by someone standing himself as a chief and I was > commanded to put the error back to the wiki because 1) no one would tag it > that way (too complicated (3 tags)), 2) everybody knows that signal XXX > means what I wanted to have the tags mean 3) there had been no discussion. > A little bit of thinking leads to these conclusions: 2a: such tagging is > not a matter of people but of programs understanding it, which I had > corrected it for; 2b: if one sees tags, they don't say which road sign they > describe, so that not even a human can interpret it rightly; 3: if a car is > sent to where it shouldn't go by the tagging, replacing it with the tags > that send it to the right way needs little discussion beyond "fine, > thanks"; 1: if nobody will do it that way and wiki instructions are to not > do it that way and OSM is laughed at and even laughs at themselves, well, > how should I say, there is a problem. > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
