On 2015-08-17 13:37, Warin wrote:
> On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale wrote: > >> If only all this energy were directed at helping OSM forwards. We haven't >> had a lot of progress in the last few years (I am not talking about mapping >> as such, but about the OSM framework itself). >> >> There are still periodical discussions about how to link OSM with other data >> sources - OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC there were objections to >> putting "foreign keys" (like shop branch numbers) into OSM on the grounds >> that someone would need to maintain that link. So how ARE we going to do it >> then? > Maintenance/verification takes place by those concerned. > If a branch shop number is of concern to you .. then you check it. > The idea that everyone must be able to check everything is ridiculous. So if I think something is useful to me, and I am prepared to maintain it to my own satisfaction, I can feel free add it and it will not be deleted by someone else who doesn't see the point or who has different priorities? > Or are we insisting on building what we in the trade call a "data island"? > Let's build some technical bridges, so it becomes a real alternative to > maintain a parallel data set. > > And then of course there are support for 3d mapping and the "area data type" > which have been under discussion for years. > > You forgot 'indoor mapping'... :-) Indeed, another good example > How will we square the circle with regards to data quality? > > I've had students trying to square circles .... having shown them how to > square rectangles/squares/triangles on the same machine. > > Will the free-tagging laissez-faire camp win, or will the curated/managed > tagging camp win? > > I'm in the 'systematised free tagging' camp .. I want a structure that has a > simple good logical basis for the tags. But allows added tags .. hopefully > following the structure present. > At present there is no structure/philosophy that can be followed. How do you see this structure/philosophy taking shape? Where will it come from? I don't think there is consensus that such things are actually worth working on. > How will this tug-of-war be organised? Will the forces at work cause OSM to > tend to converge towards "quality" or self-destruction? After all, OSM says > its product is the data, not a mapnik representation. The raster tiles may > look OK, but the underlying data may tell a story of mapnik and OSS-carto > having to work very hard to mask bad data quality. > The quality of the data is not your/my issue .. it is the structure of the > tags. ...which IMHO is part of the bigger picture of data quality. Quality is not the same as perfection. It is about agreeing things, complying with what has been agreed, the ability to measure the compliance objectively and feedback to help improve the compliance. > Where is this all going to end? > > Aren't there more important things to worry about than whether or not a > couple of hundred ways deserve a place in OSM? > > --colin > > Those who are worried about it .. do it .. and try to fix these issues. Big > issues or small issues ... depends on your view point. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
