[Tagging] Open of discussion on "operational_status" (part of life cycle with disused/abandoned/demolished)

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Tue Jul 2 08:07:49 UTC 2013

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> This leads to a situation where a mapper is expected to, as he or she walks
> the streets, update every object in the database with "yep, this is still
> there, I walked past it right now". Because just as a toilet could fall into
> disrepair, a shop could close or a house vanish, and what we currently do is
> we map this when we see it but we don't map "yep the house was still there
> last Sunday". Attempting to do this would change the typical mapper workflow
> and the structure of our data drastically.
> I know it's a slippery slope argument, and you're only proposing to do this
> for a narrow subset of things - I just wanted to point out that
> "verification mapping" is not something we do currently.

I don't think the situation you describe arises at all. There is never
any onus on any mapper to add extra redundant details - and it's
ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

An example is "surface=asphalt". It's indeed the default. And in most
parts of the world, there's no need to map it - and the fact that this
tag exists doesn't make any of the implications you suggest come true.
But in other parts of the world, it's *not* the default, so it's
useful to map it. And in some places (eg, the countryside in my
region), there really isn't a default, so it's best to explicitly tag
the surface of all roads.

Similarly, in a part of the world where it's unusual for, say, public
telephones to actually be functional, it would make sense to tag that
fact. And maybe, possibly, a mapper who sees that a public telephone
has just been fixed might feel compelled to update the database to
report that fact.


More information about the Tagging mailing list