<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2014-03-29 14:13, SomeoneElse wrote
:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5336C6E2.2050500@mail.atownsend.org.uk"
type="cite">On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">As discussed in my earlier post, I think
voting is important even for specific service tags to make them
offical.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Not really - OSM doesn't have "official" tags. It has "commonly
used" ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean
different things, but a lack of interest in a "proposal" is a
pretty good indicator that, er, no one is actually interested.
<br>
<br>
If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then
map it! If you think people are using different tags to express
what is essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people
to see if it is the same concept or if there are nuances that
anyone is missing. Please don't expect people who have no
knowledge of the real-world concept that you're trying to capture
to be able to offer a useful opinion.<br>
</blockquote>
Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send
cars to forbidden places or through mud (1) or hikers on a 5 km
useless detour, that makes people laugh at OSM users, that makes OSM
taggers laugh at themselves and laugh at me when I say that routing
is a prominent application of OSM. That disparages OSM as a whole.<br>
Different features have different degrees of importance. Mapping
every details like trees and their species is adorning and less
important. But mapping the features that tourists look for like
Nounours wants to do or road hazards, especially to spare a child's
life while looking for the features, like I want to do are
important, and both are disregarded.<br>
I have tried to show that renting is akin to selling, that they fit
in the same framework, that if you have car renting defined and you
want to support boat renting too, you almost just add the word
"boat" to the framework (like reusing an object in object oriented
programming) and that this lessens the fuss of voting new
propositions. No one seems interested. I also had rendering
problems. In the same reasoning vein, I suggested to use object
oriented like generic rendering (e.g. landuse=leisure) that would be
used if no particular rendering exists (leisure:miniature_golf=yes).
Such frameworks tend to have everybody think in the same direction.
No interest.<br>
If you look at (random cases) associatedStreet relation or
addr:country=*, some discussions will say that you should not use it
and other discussions will say that you should, but the wiki is mute
about that or almost. The reasoning about addr:country can be found
under is_in=* which is an older alternative but none of them points
to each other and it's not said that addr:country is better that
is_in=* because it shows that the name is a country. In conclusion,
half of the taggers will do it one way and half the other way. And
as the discussions say that one of the ways is not supported by all
data consumers, half of the tagging won't work for that consumer.
What about everybody doing the same thing so that the consumer did
the job only once, whichever way it is?<br>
<br>
Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the
taggers will tag each their own way and data consumers will not
understand it and it will have been tagged in vain. It is true that
some cases are less strict than others but the problem is that many
taggers have a tendency to make no difference and tag everything à
la Picasso.<br>
<br>
Last but not least, I think we forgot to thank Nounours deeply for
the work he does. Or tries to do.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
(1) I had found (with Osmand too) and corrected several similar GPS
routing tagging mistakes (there are many) and I was wondering why
the same mistakes repeat over and over again. Then I found that the
same mistake existed in my country's national wiki instructions!!!
I put that right, but I was told off by someone standing himself as
a chief and I was commanded to put the error back to the wiki
because 1) no one would tag it that way (too complicated (3 tags)),
2) everybody knows that signal XXX means what I wanted to have the
tags mean 3) there had been no discussion.<br>
A little bit of thinking leads to these conclusions: 2a: such
tagging is not a matter of people but of programs understanding it,
which I had corrected it for; 2b: if one sees tags, they don't say
which road sign they describe, so that not even a human can
interpret it rightly; 3: if a car is sent to where it shouldn't go
by the tagging, replacing it with the tags that send it to the right
way needs little discussion beyond "fine, thanks"; 1: if nobody will
do it that way and wiki instructions are to not do it that way and
OSM is laughed at and even laughs at themselves, well, how should I
say, there is a problem.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>