Hi all, a quick question. (kind of) I think that having the tags that clearly define what the entity is; and how the entity is used in the source data, is something that needs to be kept.
Here's why, it tells the user exactly what the feature is, and gives the user a better 'measuring stick' to decide for themselves which data to use; their own or this stuff. I believe that the will be communities who will decide (for example, the local parks & rec have their own database of local parks, and MUCH more detailed info than CanVec/geobase. And probably list things like; new service roads; new grass areas, new camp areas. If trees were planted in an area formerly cut grass, land use changes. The 'proper' names of trails, and use restrictions. Thinking in terms of organizations like 'bruce trail association' where they would benifit from more detailed OSM data. Size of file; I (personally) see OSM-earth being 10 terra bytes (compessed) 5 years from now. With Google using it as the default map, and ALL bus routes/cycle routes/property boundrys/ every hydro pole listed. Soon, we will have miniSD cards in terrabytes and standard computing power will be 500gigs RAM. -so the excuse about file size in not relevant. (when i baught my 1st 1gig SD card, it cost $100cdn we no longer use floppy disks :-) Yes, cloudemade will have province sized OSM extracts available, and Across Canada Trails will have a Garmin TOPO map for canada with OSM data too :) Anyway, its true that OSM tags dont have definition tags; but why dont they? It would CERTAINLY halt confusion about what a 'footway' or 'track' or 'path' means (in the region it is used) OSM has no limits, as long as the tags are useful to user, it can be added. And so, i think these tags can be added. Lookforward to counter arguments, Sam Vekemans Across Canada Trails _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
