<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/08/2015 4:28 PM, Colin Smale
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:9f4ae876a1b13ad7e022073e77672f27@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<p> </p>
<p>If only all this energy were directed at helping OSM forwards.
We haven't had a lot of progress in the last few years (I am not
talking about mapping as such, but about the OSM framework
itself).</p>
<p>There are still periodical discussions about how to link OSM
with other data sources - OSM IDs are too volatile, and IIRC
there were objections to putting "foreign keys" (like shop
branch numbers) into OSM on the grounds that someone would need
to maintain that link. So how ARE we going to do it then? </p>
</blockquote>
Maintenance/verification takes place by those concerned. <br>
If a branch shop number is of concern to you .. then you check it.
<br>
The idea that everyone must be able to check everything is
ridiculous. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9f4ae876a1b13ad7e022073e77672f27@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<p>Or are we insisting on building what we in the trade call a
"data island"? Let's build some technical bridges, so it becomes
a real alternative to maintain a parallel data set.</p>
<p>And then of course there are support for 3d mapping and the
"area data type" which have been under discussion for years.</p>
</blockquote>
You forgot 'indoor mapping'... <span class="moz-smiley-s1"><span>
:-) </span></span><br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9f4ae876a1b13ad7e022073e77672f27@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<p>How will we square the circle with regards to data quality? </p>
</blockquote>
I've had students trying to square circles .... having shown them
how to square rectangles/squares/triangles on the same machine. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9f4ae876a1b13ad7e022073e77672f27@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<p>Will the free-tagging laissez-faire camp win, or will the
curated/managed tagging camp win? </p>
</blockquote>
I'm in the 'systematised free tagging' camp .. I want a structure
that has a simple good logical basis for the tags. But allows added
tags .. hopefully following the structure present.<br>
At present there is no structure/philosophy that can be followed. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9f4ae876a1b13ad7e022073e77672f27@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<p>How will this tug-of-war be organised? Will the forces at work
cause OSM to tend to converge towards "quality" or
self-destruction? After all, OSM says its product is the data,
not a mapnik representation. The raster tiles may look OK, but
the underlying data may tell a story of mapnik and OSS-carto
having to work very hard to mask bad data quality.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
The quality of the data is not your/my issue .. it is the structure
of the tags. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:9f4ae876a1b13ad7e022073e77672f27@xs4all.nl"
type="cite">
<p>Where is this all going to end?</p>
<p>Aren't there more important things to worry about than whether
or not a couple of hundred ways deserve a place in OSM?</p>
<p>--colin</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
Those who are worried about it .. do it .. and try to fix these
issues. Big issues or small issues ... depends on your view point. <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>