Hey Guys Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguements as they are way to abstract.
Would you please either speak in clear word (links) or discuss your private issue somewhere else. Thanks On 31.03.2014 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote: > On 30.03.2014 22:25, André Pirard wrote: >> Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars >> to forbidden places or through mud > > You are obviously trying to hijack this thread because some time ago you > changed something on the wiki and someone else complained. You thought > you were doing the right thing, you got a dressing down, and you haven't > gotten over it to this day. > > You are obviously of the - mistaken - opinion that if we just had a wiki > that would have clear and concise rules, everything else would > automatically follow. > >> 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. > > In most cases you'll find that one or two ways of tagging something > cover 90 or 95 percent of cases. That's good enough for me... > >> 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. >> (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"; > > I'd say this is true if you are talking about something widely accepted > like oneway=yes. But if you talk about something more complex, where > different interpretations are possible and you change tags so that > things work in *your* routing engine, then that's the wrong approach - > the tags must describe what is on the ground, and the routing engine > must be adapted to work with that. >> 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. >> Cheers, >> >> André. >> >> > > Bye > Frederik _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
