As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me. 1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path
2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback. Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by. Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is *detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail later. Stephen On 7 May 2012 13:10, Chris Hill <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/05/12 10:34, Jonathan Harley wrote: >> >> On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote: >>> >>> Andy Street<[email protected]> writes: >>> >>>> On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote: >>>> I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path, >>>> designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the >>>> path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be >>>> pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their >>>> particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a >>>> cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an >>>> explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value. >>> >>> As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if >>> there was a single set of tags worldwide. In my case the consumer of >>> the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/). >> >> >> That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised for >> mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict? >> >>> My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we >>> don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide. The >>> idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and >>> customs is impractical. There are literally hundreds of regions that >>> might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by >>> a geographical region and list of rules. Each consumer of data then >>> needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules. >> >> >> No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care about >> the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And I think that >> would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to conform to a rigid >> tagging system. >> >> I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I think >> attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors is right up >> there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due to its simplicity >> and informality. >> >>> With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and >>> it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it. With a >>> pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search >>> through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it, >>> search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes >>> belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor. >>> >>> One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is >>> created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but >>> used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers. >>> Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of >>> times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity >>> should be in the writing side and not the reading side. >> >> >> I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. Besides, >> rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less valuable than >> OSM contributor brain power. >> >> Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use "raw" OSM data. Someone >> could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have "normalised" rights of way >> information, and publish those files for the benefit of that subset of >> consumers who happen to care about rights of way being consistent around the >> world. I think that's a much better way to go than laying down rigid rules >> for mappers, or running bots that try to bash OSM into the shape needed by a >> particular consumer. >> > + 1 > > Mappers are far too precious to lose by making tagging schemes that suit > data consumers and not mappers. OSM has grown partly because free tagging > has allowed the base of tags to grow as people who are interested in a > subject add tags that suit that object. The consensus over tagging is pretty > good, just by good sense and a common purpose. > > I am certainly in favour of using tags that everyone agrees with, but > certainly not a restricted list whether that is driven by data consumers, > some committee or wiki editors. Even worse are bots or mass edits that > flatten diversity from the database in the name of conformity. I view > changing someone's carefully chosen tag (not just typos) to something else > as vandalism. > > -- > Cheers, Chris > user: chillly > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
