<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<pre>Nelson<br><br>>I agree with Richard and Frederik's suggestion that this is an issue
>only in the UK, and that you take it to a forum where everybody
>understands what the heck you're talking about.<br><br>See previous reply.<br><br>>But may I make a suggestion? That the best way to resolve differences
>is to write them down in a Wiki page (easy to do in your own
>namespace), link to places where your wisdom differs from the common
>wisdom, insert a link from there back to your page, and say "This is
>how I map." If people share your wisdom, they will follow you.<br><br>This has been done. Both in and not in my own namespace. There is no wisdom in this. It's just the flaming obvious!<br><br> >And a further suggestion: that if what you are doing does not conflict
>with what other people are doing, then the problem isn't a mapping
>problem, it's a rendering problem. Rendering problems are solvable
>without requiring coordination between people.<br><br>This does conflict. One person may tag highway=track to what is a footway (UK access right). It is highway=footway<br>with a track there also. Or (according to designation=) it's highway=track designation=public_footway, but this is<br>not recognised by mapnik, and therefore is half way to being a solution.<br><br> >The easiest way to create order in OSM is to DOCUMENT HOW YOU MAP, and
>DON'T MAP IN OPPOSITION TO HOW OTHER PEOPLE MAP. We don't all need to
>map the same way, but the people who use the data need to understand it.<br><br>Here I completely disagree. Not that it's not the commonly stated philosophy, but that it works. Standardisation<br>is everything to data of any value. If I decide to change motorways to natural-wood then that is just wrong, <br>it's not 'my own style'. It is important to be able to make up tags and tag as you wish where tags currently <br>don't exist, but where something does exist unity is vital to good data. <br><br>And that is why I'm posting here. I can easily get rid of the whole problem by just having a render rule sheet<br>which has tracktype= render a track, rather than highway=track+tracktype= render a track. And yes this is a 'render'<br>issue. But mapnik and osmarender are on OSM's main page, so it's more than just a render. There 'keys' which state<br>what things mean contradict map features, and they influence how people map, so they are more than just a render.<br><br>Now asuming progress is made on a wiki discussion page, which has happened many times, and people with similar mapping<br>issues have come to agree with what i'm saying. The issue then is that the rulesheets for the main renders<br>then have to follow, and then ironically lead that change, and that doesn't happen. I love the work that people<br>have done, and mapnik is stunning, but it is vital that it and the wiki match up for the fundermental features.<br><br>Now what happens is that I state the issue and a solution, and people say why it's not an issue for them, <br>and that's that. It make's no progress. People then have issues later on, don't corralate it as being the same<br>issue, and in dribs and drabs (rather than in it's entirety) have map feature changes made to patch there specific<br>issue.<br><br>If there was no issue, which boy I'd really like to be the real answer, then someone would say, ok tag xyz and it<br>will render abc.<br></pre>Never has this happened; therefore there is a problem, becuase an alarmingly commonly appearing feature can't be mapped/rendered. And I can't stress the word 'commonly' enough.<br><br>Ben<br><br> </body>
</html>