[OSM-dev] AND Data to OSM Data mapping

[Lambertus]

D Tucny wrote:
> On 11/07/07, *michael_j at email.de <mailto:michael_j at email.de>* 
> <michael_j at email.de <mailto:michael_j at email.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi,
> 
>     based on the today available wikified AND Specification
>     (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/AND_Data/Spec)
>     I started an AND to OSM Mapping Specification found here:
> 
>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/AND_Data/AND-tag-mapping-to-OSM
> 
>     Its link is found here:
>     http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/AND_Data#Mapping_ANDs_Tagging_Scheme_to_OSMs_Tagging_Scheme
> 
>     I guess the tag-mapping is about 90% complete . Thus it needs some
>     eyes to look at.
> 
> 
> Looks good so far, but, there are quite a lot of fields tagged n.a. and 
> a number of things are broken down in the AND data but have been mapped 
> to single OSM tags, this means we would be loosing quite a bit of data 
> from the original data source... Should we either see about 
> improving/augmenting some of our tags to be able to capture some of this 
> additional information that we have available to us, or, at least, 
> capture some additional information into AND_* tags so that it's at 
> least visible when manually merging/importing?
> 
> d
> 
Right, for instance, the AND data specifies a finer grain in defining 
places (OSM: city, town, village, hamlet. AND:  Capital City, Large 
city, Medium city, Small city, Town, Village, Small village, Tiny village).

We could upgrade our tagging scheme to use AND's, but what if some other 
large datasource would become available as well which uses  an even 
finer grain? We could also choose to loose detail and use the OSM 
tagging scheme, but that would not please AND (and possibly others too) 
I assume.

The OSM community needs to develop a consensus about what to do with 
these kind of differences...