Am 19.12.2009 14:45, schrieb John Smith: > 2009/12/19 Ulf Lamping<[email protected]>: >> It's not up to a "statistical tool" to judge about tags in this way. > > Then do it right and include details of the last 6 weeks or so etc, > are you interested in what's current or what was current 2 years ago?
It's up to you to write a tool like this. I would probably love it. >> I want to see what *is* in use by renderers, documented in the wiki and >> used by mappers, not what people think that should be there. > > You controdict yourself, since what people think should be there is > just the step before they tag something, without better references of > when this was valid thinking it's hard to tell if it's a new trend or > and old dying trend and people should do something else instead. But I want to avoid the problems that arises when someone stands up and judges whats an old dying trend and what's a new trend. If Steve would randomly remove stuff that he thinks is old and irrelevant - would make the table probably almost useless for me. The current table gives an overview of what the current situation is. What you are talking about is a trend analysis of what the situation might be in some months from now. That is an interesting (but different) topic. If I want to make a map, then I'm probably interested that abutters is used n-times, so I can judge myself if I want to add it or not. I'm not arguing that having an indicator that it's usage numbers are e.g. going up or down would be a big plus to make good educated decisions here. >> *That* gives the wiki editors, rendering rule writers, ... a good >> overview what the current situation really is. > > Not really, since you are taking a view of old data mixed with new, > this isn't a good representation of the current situation, it's an > average of what has happened over the life time of OSM. But that *is* the current situation. The current situation *is* an average of old and new stuff. >> P.S: Map features don't even mention that abutters are to be phased out > > Considering how easy it can be to game things to put them on the map > features page, and considering how easily other people dismiss what is > documented there is that a valid argument any more? So how do the mappers out there know? From the voices inside their heads? ;-) Regards, ULFL _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
