Such a thing already mostly exists in the preset system. iD has a fairly extensive and growing set of presets that I encourage you to try (it follows the example you give).
JOSM also has a preset system, but it's not nearly as obvious or as complete (at least for the mapping I do). You access it by hitting F3 on your keyboard when mapping. On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 1:17 PM, <o...@charles.derkarl.org> wrote: > > I'm going to just point out the elephant in the room here. I don't think > any > normal user cares about the license at all. I think the actual reason its > hard > to get new mappers, especially those that are not nerdy and obsessive like > myself is that *the ontology sucks*. There, I said it, so you don't have > to. > > It's actually a few things related to how the ontology sucks: > > 1. The tagging of things bears little resemblance to things in the real > world: > a. A lot of common things just don't have standard tags: examples: > tax > preparers like H&R Block, investment brokers like Charles Schwab, medical > marijuana despensers here in California, recreational MJ shops in > Colorado. I > could go on. > b. the whole shop/amenity debate > c. common things that have really stupid tags, like barber shops > > 2. To be a useful mapper, one needs to memorize these arbitrary tags. It > wouldn't be so hard if it weren't arbitrary (a salon is a shop? and it's > called a hairdresser‽). But even if it weren't arbitrary, it'd still be > hard > to remember because things have synonyms, and no shop is called a chemist > in > the US. > > Corrolary: A bagel shop is a bagel shop, no muggle cares that a bagel shop > is > fast_food amenity that sells the bagel cuisine. > > 3. I went to a shop recently that sells espresso drinks, and gelato, but > markets itself as a chocolate maker. (Specifically: Snake & Butterfly, > Campbell, > CA). There is absolutely no sane way to tag this in OSM today. > > 4. The wiki is a terrible platform for documenting the ontology because > it's > not machine readable and it's just a slow way to get information. > > I don't just mean to moan, though. What I'd like to do is propose a > machine- > readable ontology that we could provide to JOSM, Vespucci, etc, that would > allow newbies to edit the map. I imagine a dictionary and associated tags. > A > user could type in "bagel" and all the reasonable properties show up, along > with a description of what they're entering: > > (A shop that sells primarily bagels, baked goods and breakfast > foods) > (not what you're looking for? try <bakery> or <diner>) > name: [ textbox ] > opening hours: (a *UI* to enter times of week) > vegetarian ( ) friendly ( ) unfriendly ( ) exclusively > house number: [ textbox] > etc > > And by filling these properties in, the software would automatically > convert it > to the OSM ontology. All the client software would need to do is be able to > parse our ontology file to provide all of this. And provide a sane UI, at > last, > for entering opening_hours. > > Charles > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-us mailing list > Talk-us@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us >
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us