On Thu, 11 Dec 2008 12:55:13 +1100 Ian Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've looked back through the logs, found the one discussion, noted > > that it was basically a 4-3 split of contributors and since every > > discussion on it has been "we discussed it and decided this". > > Hardly a consensus in my mind. > > Since you made the effort to go back through the logs, and re-read the > discussion that took place then, I'm surprised you would reach the > conclusion that peoples position was solely related to effort. I suspect that's because you were in the discussion and supported the views of the first poster, hence you didn't look at how he expressed it. (see below) > I disagree that there hasn't been consensus on its use. There always > have been differences of opioion, but as you say, most people have > been happy to accept that it is the way it is. That is consensus. Ok I'll pay that in the technical definition of the word you are correct. However given that all new people approach a project like this with some trepidation (For example it's taken me 10 months and someone altering work I've done to make me raise this issue which I've thought was wrong almost as soon as I found out about it) it's not surprising the 'consensus' has been maintained. OSM is littered with cases of things done badly to start with (which is not a problem in one sense because something needs to be started somewhere) and then carried on forever after (this is where it's a problem) in what appears to be consensus because no-ones been motivated to change it (The hideous is_in tag comes to mind). > I feel the approach you are taking is wrong. There are reasonable > arguments to use a mini-roundabout tag in Australia where it is > currently being used. If you want to convince people to not use it, > and to map using junction, take the time to understand and address > those arguments, and convince people that the best way is the way you > are suggesting. Don't dismiss its proponents as lazy, or worse still > as disruptive. Many of its these people have been valuable > contributors to getting the map done. Ok, I could have approached it a better way I'll admit that. But this issue boils down to the fact there are no actual reasons given for why mini_roundabout should be used! The discussion just seems to assume that every roundabout is a mini until it has reason to be bigger, it's not even discussed whether this is valid. The discussion resolves around what benefits the roundabout tag offers OVER the mini_roundabout tag, ignoring the fact they actually imply 2 quite different things in the first place. Historically the roundabout tag predates the mini-roundabout tag by at least 10 months in the wiki pages. So in effect the original mini_roundabout tag was devise to handle a very special case of roundabout that doesn't fit well with the normal definition in size, shape, signage and the fact you can drive straight over it in extenuating circumstances (I can't help but wonder if mini is referring more to it's HEIGHT that it's radius). But here in Australia we apparently want to turn that very specific case tag into the general tag and make the general tag for specific cases without actually providing any valid reason (since we are apparently not lazy). The general roundabout tag is still more accurate on the ground - You CAN'T drive straight through the center of the the average small suburban roundabout, you often can't even walk over it for the various things stuck on it. There is and island there, so why shouldn't there be an island on the map? So we in Australia have effectively reversed the precedence order of these roundabouts. -- =b _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
