[Tagging] Proposal - RFC - man_made=lamp
mhohmann at physnet.uni-hamburg.de
Sun Nov 3 23:41:10 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> lamp_type has 20,000 uses and lamp_mount has 17,000; this proposal
> tries to replace them both?
> Frankly, this sounds like typical astronaut tagging. A group of
> people got together and thought: "Now what could we *possibly* want
> to tag about a lamp?" and everything has been written down.
Basically that's the plan.
> Next thing, a helpful soul will create a JOSM template that has
> *every* *single* *one* of the 20 tags in that proposal, and gives
> people the impression that they should really know the aperture
> angle or else the tagging isn't good.
The first part is true, the second is wrong. It is written in the
proposal that these additional tags are optional and should be added
only if known. This will also be emphasized in the JOSM template.
Nobody is forced to enter any of this information. This is just the
same as with parking lots, highways and so on - also there the JOSM
templates contain lots of tags such as surface, width, maxheight,
maxspeed and a plethora of access tags. Yet it works.
> I recommend to shorten the proposal to two or three tags and let
> people map a couple thousand lamps first, then see where the
> journey goes.
As you wrote above, we already have thousands of lamps with 2-3 tags.
> Therein lies the quality of a proposal - to capture the essential
> bits, not to make endless lists of detailed stuff that could
> possibly be mapped.
Of course, essential and non-essential things should be distinguished,
I don't doubt that. I'll try to make this distinction more apparent in
the proposal, which goes beyond the essential (and yet done) "there is
a lamp" tagging.
> Creating a full blown feature catalog before the first lamp
> aperture has ever been mapped hasn't been our style in the past.
Indeed it has been the past style that everybody starts mapping
something and invents new tags, and when there is a number of
conflicting taggings, it needs to be cleaned up. This is exactly the
reason why I suggest tags for these things, before everybody comes up
with their own tags and we get the same mess again.
> There is no link. Anyone can map lamps whether or not the voting
> has been started. Even if the proposal is rejected, people can
> still map lamps.
If there is no agreed way to map something, people will either invent
their own tagging or not map something at all. Of course I could just
start mapping lamps, powers, colours and apertures right away, but if
nobody else agrees with this, it does not make much sense.
> I had a quick scan through those, but it's not immediately clear
> to me what problem you're trying to solve. What nature of
> illuminated things are OSM mappers failing to capture in the
> absence of a "lamp" proposal?
Have a look at the examples / pictures in the proposal which are not
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Tagging