[Tagging] Proposal - voting finished - man_made=lamp
mhohmann at physnet.uni-hamburg.de
Tue Nov 26 13:09:13 UTC 2013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> A draw means "rejected" as it isn't a majority for "yes". A
> "partial yes" like an "abstain" counts as vote that isn't "yes", so
> for practical reasons you can count this like a "no". At least this
> is what the rules had been so far.
A draw is a draw, it's not a majority for "no" either. You can count
an "abstain" whatever you want, it neither "yes" nor "no". Here we had
a "partial yes". And besides, as I explained before, I also took into
account the comments and reasons for opposing in the decision to keep
working on the proposal.
> To make it clear, I am not in general against tagging lights and
> lamps (besides those that already get tagged), but I also do not
> think that all kind of light emitting objects have necessarily to
> go under one and the same tag. Generally substituting one tag by
> requiring two tags isn't desirable (IMHO). The tag
> "highway=street_lamp" is widely used and there is (IMHO) no reason
> to believe a street light/lamp isn't part of a highway. You can see
> it as one or the other and apparently there are not so few mappers
> who see it as a usable tag.
Yes, this is the main outcome of the voting, as I said. And this will
be taken into account in the further work on this proposal. The
discussions here and in the forum have shown that both opinions exist
- - regarding street lamps as part of the highway or not.
> Given that there is already a tag for the (supposedly) most
> required thing in this field to be tagged, why not invent a (or
> more) new tag(s) for what remains and you want to tag?
Of course one can do this as well. My aim was to unify the tagging of
these objects, since they all generate light. This idea is not new -
think of public_transport=stop_position, for example. But of course
one can have different opinions, as always in OSM.
> And when inventing a new tag, why not do it "right" (i.e. with the
> correct terminology)? Just as there are different words in German
> (Leuchte, Strahler, Scheinwerfer, Fluter as opposed to "Lampe"),
> there are also in English.
I was using the term that was attested to me by native speakers to be
most commonly used, and also understandable to others. Many people,
especially non-native speakers, might not even know the term "light
fitting", even though it's correct UK English.
> Why not e.g. use a tag "floodlights" for certain typology of
> lights, or "lantern" for another?
This is also possible, provided that one can easily distinguish these
topologies. As a remark, "lantern" was also on my list, but as I
figured out, it usually refers to portable light sources.
> As an analogy, we also do not use "highway=street",
> "street=primary" because the way stuff went has brought us this
> distinction already in the "main tag", and someone now trying to
> reinvent this wheel would most probably fail.
Of course, highway=* is a key that already indicates some type of way
or related feature, so one can immediately specify the type of feature
in the value. "highway=street", "street=primary" would thus make no
sense. This is different for man_made=*, which does not give much
information on the type of object.
One could of course also think of not using man_made at all, and
introduce light=floodlights etc. as a new primary tag, in order to
group light sources with a more unified tagging. But honestly I have
no idea whether this would be better or worse.
-----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