[Openstreetmap-dev] OSM - Schema - Phase 1 - Request for Comment

[Tom Carden]

Andy Robinson wrote:
> I'll be brief:
>
> Tom Carden wrote:
>
>>If GPX schema elements are to be used (and we expect people to reuse bits
>>of a GPX parser, for example), can we just use a gpx namespace?
>
> I don't see why not where we keep it identical.
>
>>Wouldn't it be better to fit this discussion around the THINGS you
>>actually want to represent, rather than arbitrary jargon-y suggestions
>> for
>>elements without any grounding?
>
> They do have grounding and I do have several lists of what I believe is in
> most people's minds in terms of map/mapping features and their associated
> meta data.

Please post the lists as a starting point, not a loose abstraction that is
so similar to things we already use that I can't see the point of it.

Is the task at hand here to expand the current format to hold polygons and
points of interest?  Why not start there instead of backtracking over yet
another way to represent things we already have?

> If I don't set down the root starting point it makes the job of
> discussing the wish list more difficult. For instance, saying that Baker
> Street is a Point or Area rather than a Way doesn't really get us anywhere
> and similarly nor does saying this Point is "one way".
>

Is there such a thing as a "way" currently used in OSM?  Sounds like new
terminology for "segment" or "street" to me, and totally redundant.

>>Wouldn't it be better to do this with an eye on what the database already
>>supports, and try and map closely to that for simplicity's sake?
>
> That's why I asked Steve for clarification on what it supports, so
> hopefully
> I'm not way out of the box.
>

OK fair enough.

>> But how do I roll back vandalism?
>
> I agree, totally off topic and a topic that those far more able to
> understand the issues than myself should look to discuss ;)
>

I'm aware that roll back etc is off *your* topic for this thread, but XML
format wanking would be off topic for this whole list if I had my way.  It
just isn't important.

Unless you're going to write the code that produces it or consumes it, why
should you care?  And if you are going to write that code, I can't state
emphatically enough that those who can code should be concentrating on
other issues.

What's wrong with the wiki for format discussions if you must have them
anyway?  It's a collaboratively edited document you want, not a
conversation.

Best,

Tom.