[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Mar 30 20:41:10 UTC 2014


Well put André. +100. 

On 2014-03-30 22:25, André Pirard wrote: 

> On 2014-03-29 14:13, SomeoneElse wrote : On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote: 
> As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. 
> Not really - OSM doesn't have "official" tags. It has "commonly used" ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things, but a lack of interest in a "proposal" is a pretty good indicator that, er, no one is actually interested. 
> If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then map it! If you think people are using different tags to express what is essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people to see if it is the same concept or if there are nuances that anyone is missing. Please don't expect people who have no knowledge of the real-world concept that you're trying to capture to be able to offer a useful opinion.
 Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars
to forbidden places or through mud (1) or hikers on a 5 km useless
detour, that makes people laugh at OSM users, that makes OSM taggers
laugh at themselves and laugh at me when I say that routing is a
prominent application of OSM. That disparages OSM as a whole.
 Different features have different degrees of importance. Mapping every
details like trees and their species is adorning and less important. But
mapping the features that tourists look for like Nounours wants to do or
road hazards, especially to spare a child's life while looking for the
features, like I want to do are important, and both are disregarded.
 I have tried to show that renting is akin to selling, that they fit in
the same framework, that if you have car renting defined and you want to
support boat renting too, you almost just add the word "boat" to the
framework (like reusing an object in object oriented programming) and
that this lessens the fuss of voting new propositions. No one seems
interested. I also had rendering problems. In the same reasoning vein, I
suggested to use object oriented like generic rendering (e.g.
landuse=leisure) that would be used if no particular rendering exists
(leisure:miniature_golf=yes). Such frameworks tend to have everybody
think in the same direction. No interest.
 If you look at (random cases) associatedStreet relation or
addr:country=*, some discussions will say that you should not use it and
other discussions will say that you should, but the wiki is mute about
that or almost. The reasoning about addr:country can be found under
is_in=* which is an older alternative but none of them points to each
other and it's not said that addr:country is better that is_in=* because
it shows that the name is a country. In conclusion, half of the taggers
will do it one way and half the other way. And as the discussions say
that one of the ways is not supported by all data consumers, half of the
tagging won't work for that consumer. What about everybody doing the
same thing so that the consumer did the job only once, whichever way it

 Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the
taggers will tag each their own way and data consumers will not
understand it and it will have been tagged in vain. It is true that some
cases are less strict than others but the problem is that many taggers
have a tendency to make no difference and tag everything à la Picasso.

 Last but not least, I think we forgot to thank Nounours deeply for the
work he does. Or tries to do.



 (1) I had found (with Osmand too) and corrected several similar GPS
routing tagging mistakes (there are many) and I was wondering why the
same mistakes repeat over and over again. Then I found that the same
mistake existed in my country's national wiki instructions!!! I put that
right, but I was told off by someone standing himself as a chief and I
was commanded to put the error back to the wiki because 1) no one would
tag it that way (too complicated (3 tags)), 2) everybody knows that
signal XXX means what I wanted to have the tags mean 3) there had been
no discussion.
 A little bit of thinking leads to these conclusions: 2a: such tagging
is not a matter of people but of programs understanding it, which I had
corrected it for; 2b: if one sees tags, they don't say which road sign
they describe, so that not even a human can interpret it rightly; 3: if
a car is sent to where it shouldn't go by the tagging, replacing it with
the tags that send it to the right way needs little discussion beyond
"fine, thanks"; 1: if nobody will do it that way and wiki instructions
are to not do it that way and OSM is laughed at and even laughs at
themselves, well, how should I say, there is a problem.

Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1]


[1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20140330/894bec08/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list