[Tagging] Thoughts on how to replace or modify an exist/established tag (Was: Feature Proposal - RFC - sluice_gate)

Peter Wendorff wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Thu Jan 6 17:00:37 GMT 2011


Am 06.01.2011 16:44, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
> 2011/1/6 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com <mailto:stevagewp at gmail.com>>
>
>     Putting in place a serious process for tag migration will be
>     difficult. I suggest that a first step will be definition of an
>     actual schema, with version number. For example, define an actual
>     list of several hundred tags, with semantics, that correspond to
>     "OSM core 1.0". Then, we could have votes on changes to the
>     schema, with advance notice given: "On November 1, 2011, the main
>     database will be updated to OSM core 1.1. Please have your editor
>     and renderer patches ready for this date."
>
>
> I would even go further. I would like to see such a schema become a 
> sort of "OSM certification", to be awarded to consumers that fully 
> support it.
What's the benefit of that?
What beside of this - I fear, stupid - "certification" is the benefit 
for a hiking map in supporting e.g. maxspeed of motorways as part of the 
OSM core being the decision basis to get the certification?

To make a better example: Garmin AiO for Europe is getting too large for 
many devices currently - so the core definition you propose would 
require to include buildings in the map, no matter of their size and the 
drawbacks of excluding most old devices by including the building layer?

An alternative to "this product supports OSM Core n.n completely" as a 
(the?) requirement for the certification would be "this product does not 
interpret attributes from OSM conflicting to the Core definition".

This for me fit's better, but nevertheless not completely, as it does 
not prevent devices to support other variants as well probably 
conflicting in parts.

Additionally there would have to be an organization/council/something to 
give the certification to the application (in wide interpretation) 
developer/vendor.

But: even that does not automatically lead to high quality of the 
product: A map without legend is worse than a map with missing 
housenumber display. A public bus information system without support of 
railway is complete in it's self defined domain - but lacks of the 
railway network and therefore does not support the complete core (I guess).

I thought about some kind of layered-extracts a while to get kind of a 
stable, well defined architecture for application vendors:
An API (not THE api) could export a "car routing layer", a "building 
shape layer", a "footway layer" and so on.
That could be an enhancement of the XAPI concept by shortcuts for 
complex queries, too.
It probably could provide a bridge of the wiki principle of OSM 
including the free-to-invent-new-tags to the application requirement of 
a as much as possible stable base for data updates.
Last, but not least it could be one solution to define renames for 
"deprecated" tag usages of some kind, e.g. new invented subtags.

To use the tree example discussed a few month ago (a tree versus an 
important or lone tree) the "tree" layer could be split after that 
discussion to an "tree" layer and an "important tree" layer considering 
the new subtags and only providing the trees explicitly tagged as important.

I'm neither sure yet if that's a good idea, nor do I know if it is clear 
what I wanted to say - but well - everybody can ask me.

regards
Peter
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20110106/ec3aec72/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list