[OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes

[Richard Fairhurst]

Maarten Deen wrote:
> IMHO that's stretching the "geographic" bit very far. Sure, the fact 
> that there is a sign is a geographic fact, but the fact that that 
> signifies something for the road or object that's there is just 
> convention. 

I think you're playing with semantics in a way that makes sense to you, but
not necessarily to others. These "conventions" have been established so long
(the "no entry" sign was internationally adopted in 1931), and are so widely
understood to have one single meaning, that there is no longer any question
of interpretation.

There are objects present on the ground, of a certain appearance. That
dictates that we enter certain tags into OSM, associated with a geometry
which reflects the position of those objects. That's all there is to it.

That is fundamentally how OSM works. Observe geographic fact; enter fact
into database in way agreed by community.

> And highway value is certainly not geographic. There is nothing 
> about the location or presence of a road that makes it 
> "motorway" or "tertiary". That is only because it is designated 
> as such.

In the UK, it's exactly the same situation as a one-way street.

Where there is a road with green signs, with a number in yellow beginning
"A", we tag it highway=trunk. Where there is a road with white signs, with a
number in black beginning "A", we tag it highway=primary. And so on.

I realise that other countries have different conventions that may not be so
closely tied to signs, but they should always be tied to observable facts. I
don't usually cite the wiki, but
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiable .

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-license-change-effect-on-un-tagged-nodes-tp6541123p6561934.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.