W dniu 13.05.2015 0:56, Bryce Nesbitt napisał(a):
Something that gets proposed from time to time is a tree hierarchy:
shop=food:bakery:muffins+sweets:cookie
So what are the reasons it does not catch up?
I think the downside of this example is that it would be tedious and too
detailed for people to enter and thus more error prone - we should rely
more on editors with validation rules then. In a "bricked", lightweight
version it would be rather:
shop + muffins + cookies
because if we have the general category tree curated on the wiki, we
don't have to explicitly repeat it inside each item's tagging.
That said the google approach would be to infer everything from text,
social and web linking analysis:
name=Fred's Bakery
website=http://freds.example.org/ [1]
As we already have these informations, we could just ignore the rest and
make a big software effort to recognize the meaning. But that would be
hard problem, involving parsing the websites. So it is for Google, but
their strength is automatic big data analysis, and ours is multiple
users with their own analysis powers. =}
I would also say Google has much lower expectations - they want the map
to be just a part of their services ecosystem, especially for
advertising locations, while we want the map to have all the items one
can think of.
--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
down" [A. Cohen]
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
