<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 7/01/2011 4:00 AM, Peter Wendorff wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4D25F535.3080903@uni-paderborn.de" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
What's the benefit of that?<br>
What beside of this - I fear, stupid - "certification" is the
benefit for a hiking map in supporting e.g. maxspeed of motorways
as part of the OSM core being the decision basis to get the
certification?<br>
</blockquote>
You've unfortunately made a couple of big assumptions, and drawn
conclusions from those.<br>
<br>
Assumption 1: That there would only be one set of tags. (I used the
example "core" specifically because I expect there will be other,
"non-core" sets of tags)<br>
Assumption 2: That every product that uses OSM data must support all
defined tags.<br>
<br>
Instead, I can imagine "core" being very small. Maybe it doesn't
even need to exist. And then other sets: core, urban, natural,
water, cycling, ... Perhaps they overlap. We haven't even started
thinking about this yet.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D25F535.3080903@uni-paderborn.de" type="cite">
so the core definition you propose would require to include
buildings in the map, no matter of their size and the drawbacks of
excluding most old devices by including the building layer?<br>
</blockquote>
No one has suggested such a thing. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4D25F535.3080903@uni-paderborn.de" type="cite">Additionally
there would have to be an organization/council/something to give
the certification to the application (in wide interpretation)
developer/vendor.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Let's not get sidetracked by this future hypothetical idea of
"certification". The first step is to define actual sets of tags,
with clear semantics.<br>
<br>
Steve<br>
</body>
</html>