On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Roy Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Um...what??? That will not write itself. Do you expect us to >>> successfully digitize and maintain a database of all laws of all >>> countries? >> >> What do you think? Work with me, here. > > I think that would be a nightmare, and would not work. If anything, it > would introduce MORE inconsistency due to 1) difficulty maintaining > the lawbook and 2) a more complicated set of guidelines and more > complicated wiki, making it even LESS likely that people will follow > it consistently. > > As I've said, I'd prefer to stick to *mapping what's on the ground*, > *according to the guidelines in the wiki*. This is the only way to get > global consistency, which I think is important for the reasons I've > already described.
If the law of one jurisdiction says bicycles are allowed on all roads except freeways, and the law of another jurisdiction says bicycles are allowed on all roadways with speed limits less than 45, and there aren't any signs "on the ground" making people aware of this, and we don't want to maintain a database of laws, what are we to do? I like the idea of mapping only "what's on the ground". But it can be taken to far. Does anyone honestly suggest that we shouldn't tag a road's name using any knowledge other than what's literally "on the ground" - on a street sign? Should we really do away with pretty much all boundary=* tags altogether (or replace them with nodes at the points where there are signs)? "Map what's on the ground" is a good guideline, but there have to be exceptions. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
