> What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on
> www.openstreetmap.org?
Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data quality
in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing buildings.
Appreciate the great work of the iD team.
Also commend your attention to tagging issues Michael. There's certainly a
broader issue with how tags are managed in OSM. In short it's a mess all around
and is in need of a rethink. I don't think this minor issue is a "hill to die
on" however.
-Mikel
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4:18:20 PM EDT, Michael Reichert
<osm...@michreichert.de> wrote:
Hi,
this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a
discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the
Talk mailing list.
Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called
nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not
square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. I (and later Paul
Norman) pointed out issues with the tag. I asked Quincy to discuss the
addition with the wider community beforehand.
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6332
Here are the issues I pointed out in the bugtracker. At the beginning he
planned to use square=no which he later changed to nosquare=yes but this
change does not make things better:
> Although noname=yes is common, it is not that common that it can serve as an
> argument in favour of introducing unsquare=yes. In difference to noexit=yes,
> unsquare=yes and noname=yes only serve as a workaround for quality assurance
> tools. noexit=yes also conveys information for map users: There road ends
> here.
>
> Some people prefer to tag as complete as possible and add oneway=no,
> cycleway=no, lit=no etc. to any way. However, such a practice is not base on
> a broad consensus and if you dig deep enough in the history of user blocks in
> OSM, you might find blocks set due to an excessive use of negative binary
> tags.
>
> I think that iD does not need this tag and should only validate buildings if
> they have been added or modified in the current session. If doing so, they
> will be reported once which does not bother that much.
>
> Adding such a tag is not a simple change as it might seem to be and I ask you
> to discuss it with the broader community on the Tagging mailing list.
What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on
www.openstreetmap.org?
Best regards
Michael
--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
