Am 03.02.2010 00:32, schrieb Frederik Ramm: > Hi, > > Ulf Lamping wrote: >> You're all right when it comes to common stuff, that's documented in >> Map Features and may already exist in the presets of JOSM/Potlatch. >> But that's the easy part. >> >> The hassle begins, when you come to a topic where this isn't the case. > > But this thread started with people complaining about lack of commercial > usability because of "tagging mayhem" (Nic's term). Although I share > Ivan's sentiment (producing something commercially usable should not be > our #1 goal), maybe we can stick with that for a moment - let us try and > find out what data the commercial providers have and which is *not* on > one simple Wiki page (or a mug). > > It can't be the murky details of cycleways and bridleways because the > commercial providers don't have that, or if they have it then only in > selected areas. It can't be highway=path and all that because they don't > have it. It can't be - in my opinion! - the top highway types from > motorway down to residential because they aren't any better in that than > we are (or are they). > > It could be turn restrictions; I agree that an easy editor for those is > required - but while the tagging rules are a bit complex for turn > restrictions, they are not mayhem - they are perfectly clear. > > So where is it that > > 1. the commercial providers have good data > 2. OSM hasn't and > 3. the reason for OSM not having it is not lack of coverage but lack of > consensus regarding tagging?
Chris argument was about the "none existing" problems of "tag finding" and I was responding to that. Your argument is about what the commercial providers have definitions that we lack of. As far as I know that definitions, I agree with you that there's no real problem for us :-) Regards, ULFL _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
