Dave Stubbs wrote: >Sent: 19 March 2008 2:25 PM >To: Gervase Markham >Cc: [email protected] >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight > >On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >wrote: >> Frederik Ramm wrote: >> > Why not ditch the whole notion of "approved" features altogether. It >> > doesn't cut any meat in our community anyway. What does "approved" >> > mean, and who has the right to "approve" something? >> >> Having an approved set of tags means that there is ideally 1, but >> certainly a small number of ways of tagging common features, rather than >> 15 or 50. This makes it much easier for renderers, routing and other >> types of software, and much easier for people who are improving an area >> of map that someone else has worked on to figure out what they meant. > > >Just because you don't "approve" the tag, doesn't mean everybody does >their own thing and ignores everyone else without any discussion. >And this thread is starting to give me deja vu.... so lets not rehash >this argument again. > > >> >> It also means that when a particular tag is used, it only has one >> meaning. Without some standardisation, does maxspeed=50 mean mph or kph? >> Or does it vary from country to country? > >whoa! now that's some serious deja vu.... > >> >> What is the difference between your argument and "Why have the notion of >> an "approved" set of HTML tags? The web is a collaborative community. >> No-one has the right to approve anything. We should all just use the >> markup tags that seem most sensible."? > >it's called XML... and microsoft have proved what really cuts the mustard >there. > >> >> >> > Right, generate it from the planet file and that's that. Maybe have a >> > wiki page that documents what the renderers do and at what zoom level >> > (ideally auto-generated as well). >> >> Except that such a generated page would have no way of ordering and >> classifying the tags so that you could find the one you wanted. > >Here I agree. You want some more information than just that. ie: a >system where people can document and add meta data to tagging schemes >such as categorisation and common groupings (although maybe that one >can be automated a bit). A planet dump is a good base, but some >explanation for horse=yes wouldn't go amiss. >
80n and I were just discussing this issue over coffee. We both feel that generating tag lists from planet is a good idea, but to give prominence to them (ranking if you like) it would be good to have the number of users for a particular tag rather than the actual occurrence of the tag in the database. Planet is supposed to have usernames now (where are we with that one?) so it should be a relatively simple task to automate from planet as others have attempted to do previously (tagwatch etc). We could still do with a logical layout structure for tags, to help find them, associate them with other tags, and to assist in new tag names, but that's a separate task. Cheers Andy >Dave > >_______________________________________________ >talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
