[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
osmned at gmail.com
Sun Mar 30 22:13:39 UTC 2014
@ Andre, Nounours,
welcome to a project without goals. If you want to change the things you're
writing about, then you're most welcome to join the Future Group
2014-03-30 22:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com>:
> 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 is?
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging