Most of Chris's blog appears irrelevant to this case. The cemetery/graveyard example isn't applicable.

There's no "variations", "differences" or "flattening out the data into a monotonous grey".

If you have 2 tags: X1 & X2 that represent the same object, & the data user checks for both counts, changing them all to X1 will not effect the results, it just means it'll return no X2s.

Combining tags which have *equal* meaning makes it less confusing/time consuming for the mappers. Less lookups of the wiki to check what is recommended. We need to make it easier for mappers. OSM needs more mappers who can add accurate data. As Chris says "Our most precious resource are our mappers".


On 13/10/2016 18:51, Chris Hill wrote:
Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and you added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should proceed as you see fit and so will I.

I have written about this process more than once in the past, for example

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only 127, two of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus, which surely ought to be just bus=*, and one single instance of access:psv:maxweight

Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging schemes if I feel that the tagging is correct and likely to be repeated elsewhere. But I don’t believe that this is. It is unexpected, and it is undocumented. I haven’t looked to see if it is one user, or 127 different users. But either way it is at most 127 out of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently had last month according to a different thread today. And the whole purpose of me asking was, anyway, to find out if people had a real need to tag in this unusual way before I changed it, rather than to be told that if you found me doing it, you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.

Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia

On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F < <>> wrote:

I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*

If they're to signify different entries, what are those differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of access:psv. If there is none, they should be change as clearly more users are expecting psv=*

If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then there's no harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a consumer to validate the data.


On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application. If every data consumer changed the tags they don't like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by doing that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster - mappers are our most precious resource.

Change your processing to include both types of tagging. It is not hard to do, you write the code once and use it whenever you need to in the future.

Cheers, Chris (chillly)

On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds <> wrote:

    Greetings all!

    In Nottingham in particular there are a number of roads marked
    with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I would normally
    expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and more importantly
    (to me) so would my contractor who is importing the data. I’ve
    checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to agree with the
    contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.

    There are only 275 instances of access:psv worldwide, and I
    propose to change those (manually) in the areas that I am
    concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you know, in case
    anyone has any violent objections or wonders what I am up to.

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB mailing list

Reply via email to