[Tagging] noexit=yes on ways ? (a typical OSM story)

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Sun Apr 13 19:20:38 UTC 2014


On 10.04.2014 18:08, André Pirard wrote:
> In other words, 40% tags (on ways) can't be wrong. But the problem is
> that 99.+% of these correct tags are mistakes and shouldn't even exist
> because they do not represent "ways ending near another way", which are
> the targets of noexit=yes,  but normal dead ends needing no other tagging.

I don't see a problem in tagging a normal dead-end with "noexit=yes". It
doesn't hurt, and adds information (namely that this isn't just a bit
where I had no time to continue tracing, but a proper "end"). I don't do
it myself but I'll certainly not make an effort to flag this as "error"
and get my knickers in a twist about it.

> What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? 
> (I asked that already).

The question does not make sense. Of course the end that is not
connected to another highway is the dead-end. If the way should not be
connected to anything on either side it will already be flagged as a
connectivity error.

> What does happen when the way is split or unsplit?

Logically, if you merge a dead-end with a non-dead-end, the result will
still be a dead-end. If you split a dead-end then one part won't be a
dead-end and the other will - however, having a way tagged noexit=yes
which has no dangling ends doesn't seem to be a drastic error to me.

> In fact, is it "the way" or is it "the highway"? Just a segment or more
> and up to where?

I think you should take a deep breath and calm down.

The bit that is "typical OSM" about this is that people can't cope with
a bit of fuzziness and then start endless discussions, and in the end
claim that OSM is doomed, lacks quality, will never work, is ruled by
idiots, whatever.

> I know who is right: our government who say that OSM is not
> [necessarily, to remain civil] up to the quality they expect for data. I
> fear that this does not favor obtaining data from them.

Well who knows if we even want your government's data. Maybe it lacks
the qualities we are looking for.

> I was enthusiastic, but I now believe less and less in OSM.

Maybe you misunderstood OSM and you are slowly learning what it is, and
what it is not.

> Please let us ask Osmose to mark as an error any nooexit=yes that is
> either not on a node or not close to another way.  We could report that
> action to that government and others as an example that we at least try
> to put our data right.

I don't think that we have to prove to any government that we are
"trying to put right" something that is hardly a problem. In fact,
spending brainpower and time on such a trivial issue would be quite a
misallocation of resources.

> Now what about some more fun?  Flood tagging noexit=no in the middle of
> every street?  That wouldn't make 40% but 100% and require a wiki update
> by those able to understand contributors, wouldn't it? ;-)

Vandalise OSM to prove a point and we'll kick you out. Just so that
governments around the world can see that we're taking that seriously.


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the Tagging mailing list