On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen <[email protected]> wrote: > Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 +0000 schrieb Andy Mabbett: >> On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is >> > subjective, >> > but there is no alternative. >> >> Poppycock. > > Why?
For the reason I gave in an earlier post: it is often an objective, verifiable legal designation. >> > It is not possible to calculate the importance >> > of a station just by some values. >> >> How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice? > > I do not use any calculation based on measures?! My proposal (seems > that you did not read it) uses a list of characteristic criterias for > each category. You seem to mean different things by: * values * measures * characteristic criterias [sic] Please define your terms. > The scheme I propose can be compared to the place=* scheme. > This definition also mentions "important", so where is the difference > to the importance proposal? The former does not try to quantify importance. It uses the term descriptively in the page about the key, not as the key. > And why is importance=* so problematic from > the view of some mappers, while we are also using a similar scheme for > places? We are not; and for the reason given earlier in this thread. >> > I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For >> > example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult >> > to >> > measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other >> > mappers. >> >> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily >> checked* by other mappers. > > If you think that the number of passengers or trains is easy to map in > a larger scale, then please describe how you would map these values. Please answer my question. >> > I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex >> > algorithm might be very intransparent. >> >> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more >> transparent*. > > As I said, I do not use any calculation based on measures. See above regarding your terms. > My proposal > requires that a mapper classifies a station to one station category. It > is more transparent because everyone can see that a station is tagged > with a certain category. So a user easily understands why e.g. a > station is rendered in a certain zoom level or was recognized as more > important in the ranking of search results. Then the tag would be transparent, but not the means used to arrive at it. > If you just calculate the importance from a list of measurable values, > you may get good results with a complex algorithm that recognizes many > aspects. But then it is very difficult for a mapper to understand why > station A was ranked more important than station B, and it is also > difficult to influence the ranking if it is wrong. That is what I mean > with transparency. So long as the algorithm is published, it would be entirely transparent. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
