[OSM-talk] Cross-renderer tag support, now with OSMdoc!
ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Sat Dec 19 14:41:58 GMT 2009
Am 19.12.2009 14:45, schrieb John Smith:
> 2009/12/19 Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
>> It's not up to a "statistical tool" to judge about tags in this way.
> Then do it right and include details of the last 6 weeks or so etc,
> are you interested in what's current or what was current 2 years ago?
It's up to you to write a tool like this. I would probably love it.
>> I want to see what *is* in use by renderers, documented in the wiki and
>> used by mappers, not what people think that should be there.
> You controdict yourself, since what people think should be there is
> just the step before they tag something, without better references of
> when this was valid thinking it's hard to tell if it's a new trend or
> and old dying trend and people should do something else instead.
But I want to avoid the problems that arises when someone stands up and
judges whats an old dying trend and what's a new trend. If Steve would
randomly remove stuff that he thinks is old and irrelevant - would make
the table probably almost useless for me.
The current table gives an overview of what the current situation is.
What you are talking about is a trend analysis of what the situation
might be in some months from now. That is an interesting (but different)
If I want to make a map, then I'm probably interested that abutters is
used n-times, so I can judge myself if I want to add it or not. I'm not
arguing that having an indicator that it's usage numbers are e.g. going
up or down would be a big plus to make good educated decisions here.
>> *That* gives the wiki editors, rendering rule writers, ... a good
>> overview what the current situation really is.
> Not really, since you are taking a view of old data mixed with new,
> this isn't a good representation of the current situation, it's an
> average of what has happened over the life time of OSM.
But that *is* the current situation. The current situation *is* an
average of old and new stuff.
>> P.S: Map features don't even mention that abutters are to be phased out
> Considering how easy it can be to game things to put them on the map
> features page, and considering how easily other people dismiss what is
> documented there is that a valid argument any more?
So how do the mappers out there know? From the voices inside their
More information about the talk