<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>May 29, 2022, 23:55 by fl.infosreseaux@gmail.com:<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>It won't be possible to make hundred of contained features fit on a node there.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">mapping such object as a node in the first pass mapping <br></div><div dir="auto">(for example - while aerial imagery is not available) is OK<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>To me, there is no point to prescript geometry affinity in wiki at the lowest (or limited) information level available.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Well, then people claim that "it is forbidden to map XYZ as node".<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe there would be benefit from extra state there, "discouraged"?<br></div><div dir="auto">That could go on on landuse=cemetery nodes and so on.<br></div><div dir="auto">(note: I am not planning to work on this)<br></div></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">It's valuable to prescript it with highest knowledge possible in mind.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Many people edit in poorly mapped parts of world, OSM Wiki should be<br></div><div dir="auto">documenting OSM, not just well mapped OSM parts<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">If not, we can map mostly everything on nodes, then why do we mind node affinity?<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">many objects are not mappable as nodes at all<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Same for water=lake, deservedly discouraged on nodes in the wiki.<br></div><div><a target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dlake">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water%3Dlake</a><br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">I just edited wiki to fix this<br></div><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;"><div dir="ltr"><div>Finally, all this proposal is about quality control and disambiguation between substations and contained features.<br></div><div>Defining situations where areas are preferred leads to more relevant quality checks.<br></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto">Right now it is not defining as preferred.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">It is not even banning use of [power=substation] (without extra tags, or with<br></div><div dir="auto">some substation=* values) on nodes.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><a href="https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_nodes_extension#Vote" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Substation_nodes_extension#Vote</a><br></div><div dir="auto">misleadingly claims that it is already banned.<br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I see that it also claims that utility=power is mandatory on building=service housing<br></div><div dir="auto">substations (it is not, I mapped many building=service without adding this and it is fine,<br></div><div dir="auto">especially if I added power=substation then adding utility=power adds no real benefit)</div><div dir="auto">Describing it as mandatory is again pretending that consensus already exists.<br></div> </body>
</html>