<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 2015-05-16 01:40, Frederik Ramm
wrote :<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:555683F3.7020800@remote.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi,
On 05/16/2015 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Often.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
appear on the map.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Thing is, there is no "THE" map. There's tons of maps in various colour
schemes and designs, as well as tons of non-map uses of our data, and
this is one of the super strenghts of OSM - we record that there's a
motorway, and the map maker can define how they want the motorway drawn.</pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, there is "THE" ("main") map at OSM.org but indeed I don't
remember having ever read what it is for.<br>
Tentatively it's a tourism, traveler's etc. <i><b>general</b></i>
map like those one finds in bookshops on paper, but ecologic.<br>
But lately, under "Is what we're doing useful?", I reported <a
href="https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/issues/871#issuecomment-69663724">a
reply from Tom Hughes</a> seeming to say that THE map is not for
the general public and refusing to set a help page for it (plus
saying that the documentation we make amounts to being crap). So,
every tagger is invited to make and publish his own rendering and to
pay Google so that it were advertised better than the others.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:555683F3.7020800@remote.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Your suggestion would kill that flexibility, and everyone would have to
adhere to that one colour scheme set up by the mapper or editor. It
would totally run against everything we hold dear.</pre>
</blockquote>
I understand that what pmailkee suggests is basically similar to
what I once suggested: lessen tagging for the renderer by finding
means to make rendering simpler to implement so that every specific
tiny feature is not a hassle to render and that the tagger finds
"legal" ways to tag with rendering (making visible) the features <b>he</b>
holds dear. The proposed solutions may well not be the best ones
but...<br>
Just like what you write here, all the answers were "NOT". Even
stupidly laughing at what I wrote.<br>
There was <b>not a single</b> attempt to suggest alternative
solutions to the problem.<br>
Consequently, the consensus was "we prefer tagging for the
renderer".<br>
<br>
An alternative is for example using something like a rendered
"landuse=tourism" for features more specifically defined with
Logical Structured tagging attributes like tourism:leisure=maze,
tourism:leisure=miniature_golf, tourism=camp_site, etc., any feature
that fits on an area with a name for touristic purpose. Other
purposes alike.<br>
That tag would fill an otherwise empty area with any plain color the
render chooses and write a name on it unless some more specific
rendering exists. And the tagger would be glad that not only the
feature found by search are made visible (and back to invisible when
the search pane is closed).<br>
I called that "generic rendering" and even that was refused (the
examples above are generalized existing tags).<br>
So, the general consensus answer is clearly "please do tag for the
renderer".
<br>
<br>
Cheers
<br>
<br>
<table>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>André.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:555683F3.7020800@remote.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What you are talking about is essentially "MS Paint with multi-user
capability". That's certainly an interesting project in itself but not
something that we should remotely consider in OSM.
Bye
Frederik
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>