While considering the absence of a value to imply that it is unknown is an elegant solution theoretically, I think it has two major problems: 1) If we try to add every possible tag to every element, the DB will be immense and the OWG will try to kill us. Imagine every road having access tags. Should roads have tunnel=no? 2) Data consumers will sometimes still need to guess the value, which means a default still needs to be known.
I'd like to have a larger discussion about implied and assumed tags, because this is becoming a major problem. On 4 January 2018 at 02:22, Fernando Trebien <fernando.treb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tag absence has never been defined clearly in OSM. Some think of it as > meaning "the tag has the default value," others think "the value of the tag > is still unknown," which seems to be the most common understanding (that's > why noname=* exists). > > I always add tags in their default value to express that the value is > known and has been surveyed, cycleways included. (though in the case of > cycleways I usually only add them around existing cycleways to avoid > confusion and to prevent mappers - especially those using iD - from > combining sequential ways without getting a warning) > > Em 25 de dez de 2017 23:34, "Dave Swarthout" <daveswarth...@gmail.com> > escreveu: > >> This sounds similar to those that suggested adding oneway=no to all >> streets that are not explicitly tagged as oneway=yes. All roads without >> cycleways could conceivably be tagged this way. >> Unless there is some cause for such a tag, for example, noting that a >> cycleway once existed here but is no longer present, this tag is totally >> unnecessary and adds needless data to OSM. >> >> On Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 6:50 AM, marc marc <marc_marc_...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> Le 26. 12. 17 à 00:22, Dave F a écrit : >>> >>> > There's been quite a few recent additions of 'cycleway:both=no' being >>> > added by users of StreetComplete. >>> > >>> > http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/8609990 >>> > >>> > There's no mention of this tag on the wiki & to me appears a bit >>> > ambiguous. Most (all?) are the sole cycle tag on the entity. Both=no >>> > suggests that a cycleway could exist in one direction. >>> >>> I agree that cycleway:both=no is not a good tag. >>> cycleway=no is better. >>> >>> > What is the reason the developers aren't using the established tagging >>> > scheme: >>> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:cycleway >>> >>> ask the dev :) >>> >>> > Note under 'cycleway=no' as a tag of "dubious usefulness". >>> >>> I could help to see what road have been surveyed and somebody see that >>> this road doesn't have a cycleway. Put in urban area, it's a (minor) >>> added value. Without a cycleway tag, the cycleway is unknown. >>> >>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> >>> it's also a dubious usefulness :) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Marc >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dave Swarthout >> Homer, Alaska >> Chiang Mai, Thailand >> Travel Blog at http://dswarthout.blogspot.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
