Part of the problem between the tagging schemes and the rendering is that it's a chicken-and-egg problem; a new tagging scheme is created, but rendering support isn't there yet (partly because it's a somewhat complex structure), so people might not use that scheme. However, if there were many instances of using the newer scheme, then it would be justified for the renderers to add support for that scheme.
(On the rendering topic, though, I can confirm that OSM's transport map does support the newer scheme, as does Öpnvkarte, OpenStreetBrowser, OsmAnd, so it's not lacking.) A slightly bigger issue I see is that there are two formats for tagging transportation routes, which will not only require data consumers to code for both formats, but will also make it harder to link a bus route tagged using the newer format be "connected" to another bus route using the older format. I feel that this should be resolved quickly. On Saturday, November 29, 2014 02:02:01 stevea wrote: > >it is not clear if the new way is actually better, at least the > >current data stats show that mappers still prefer the "old" method, > >at least for bus stops, as it is simpler (you need just one tag > >highway=bus_stop instead of two: public_transport=platform and > >bus=yes, for the same information content), and the new style cannot > >be rendered on the main map, because of the lack of the bus-key (the > >rendering db only "knows" that there is some kind of stop, but it > >cannot determine if it is a tram stop, a bus stop or whatelse). > > > >I wouldn't "re-tag", ie. won't remove tags, but you can add the > >public_transport=* tags if you want to support also this scheme. > > Is what I hear Martin saying here is that tagging with an old style > because it renders AND tagging with a newer syntax that doesn't is > OK? (As in, "doing two things at once, even if they achieve > different, but good and worthy goals, is right"?) If so, part of > what it says is that syntax is rather distantly connected to > rendering. Read that again, as I think it is important. It is about > what might be called OSM's "transmission." > > Not everybody understands the full process of how changes in syntax > (e.g. voted upon tagging) turn into "what we see mapped." There are > human consensus processes there, there are coding processes there > (including bug fixes, actual writing of render code..) there is quite > much more than just that there. It is a complicated moving set of > parts. It is "let's map bus routes, OK, let's describe better syntax > for bus routes, OK (but we don't render that today"). Now what? > That's a real "hit the brakes and think about how to do it better, so > discuss" moment. > > As we recognize distance between what people want to see represented > in the map (how they tag) with the syntax of doing so (actual tags > that get into OSM's data) can we better discuss this? We can and > should, I say. Deep, I know. My point is that a person wanting to > understand how to influence this is very much helped by understanding > it (as much of it as possible, as much of it as we can describe as > what we intend...) in the first place. How might one see such moving > parts of OSM and how they a) work today? and b) work better in the > future as we intend them? It goes deeper than public transport > tagging, but that is a good example through this transmission. > > Look, I know: some of us work on our transmission, and they must. A > lot more of us -- and there are many -- are only quite vaguely aware > of how it works, or how we might best induce positive change into its > workings. We can do better. Good discussion so far, but it seems we > are only scratching this surface. > > SteveA > California -- Saikrishna Arcot
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
