[Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
imagic.osm at gmail.com
Fri Apr 12 08:36:09 UTC 2013
2013/4/11 François Lacombe <francois.lacombe at telecom-bretagne.eu>
> Data quality and consistency check world would definitely prefer to work
> with relations than with spatial processing.
The important word here is "prefer". It is obvious that most data consumers
prefer relations. They are (often) easier to process. But what the
consumers process is the data that mappers provide. The consumers get that
data for free. So why should the consumers be allowed to put additional
burden on the mappers just to make their own life easier?
Processing _is_ (often) harder without relations. That's a fact no-one
denies. But we have to make a decision. Do we want data that is very easy
to process but we get less of it because mappers often fail to provide it.
Or do we want data that's a little harder to process but we get more of it.
You can't have both - you have to make a decision.
Just for the sake of completeness: I will never be a great "plant-mapper"
so to me it might be completely irrelevant how they should be tagged. But I
want this little baby (aka OSM) to become a big boy (or girl - see
and in my opinion we will only achieve this if we keep the new mappers
coming and don't frustrate them early on. I'm fully aware of the importance
of data consumers. They do a great work and I definitively don't intend to
make their life miserable. Actually the exact opposite: I want them to get
as much data as possible. For free. That's why I'm sometimes a pain in the
ass. And yes, I know that some people would argue about that "sometimes" ;-)
All the best,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging