On 14-Oct-16 05:22 AM, Gregory wrote:

I agree with what Chris says.

I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss new data that mapper adds, they will likely be unaware of your mass manual edit.

As an occasional data consumer, I have also used tags on non-public projects because I once looked at a local area (or did mapping of it myself) and saw what was used. Why is it fair that you break my system without even contacting people who mapped with those tags?

"MY system"? Really. Once it is 'in' OSM it is no longer 'yours'. I think of OSM as a community .. diverse but all want a map.

Where a tag is undocumented on the wiki then it is very open to interpretation ... and the interpretation could well be that the tag is an error.

There are probably at least 40,000 different ways of tagging the same object ... by using the wiki documented methods the data becomes more usable, consistent, understandable rather than fragmented and confusing. While upsetting a single mapper is not good, that could be better than upsetting many more.

From the east coast main line,

On Oct 13, 2016 6:53 PM, "Chris Hill" <o...@raggedred.net <mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> 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

    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
            <mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>>> 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
            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
                <mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> 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@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>

Talk-GB mailing list

Talk-GB mailing list

Reply via email to