On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up information into > lots of little "objective" facts, like (in the case of mountain bike > trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a "subjective" fact > like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical to collect that > much information, and it's impractical to combine it back into a > usable form for data consumers, so we lose twice. The important point is that a subjective tag at least needs an objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag "tracktype=grade1", according to the definition "Paved track or heavily compacted hardcore" could easily be replaced with the objective tags "surface=paved" or "surface=compacted". I would argue that entering objective facts (e.g. "surface=*" in the previous example) is a much better option than subjective tagging. It requires no more information than you already have, and is no less practical for data consumers. It's actually more powerful, specific, clear, verifiable (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability), and reduces the dependency of mappers and consumers on the wiki to make sense of the data. Point is: if you insist on using subjective tags as a short-cut, please, please at least ensure they have objective definitions in the wiki.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
