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

fly lowflight66 at googlemail.com
Sun Mar 30 22:45:19 UTC 2014

Hey Guys

Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguements as they are way to abstract.

Would you please either speak in clear word (links) or discuss your
private issue somewhere else.


On 31.03.2014 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> On 30.03.2014 22:25, André Pirard wrote:
>> Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars
>> to forbidden places or through mud
> You are obviously trying to hijack this thread because some time ago you
> changed something on the wiki and someone else complained. You thought
> you were doing the right thing, you got a dressing down, and you haven't
> gotten over it to this day.
> You are obviously of the - mistaken - opinion that if we just had a wiki
> that would have clear and concise rules, everything else would
> automatically follow.
>> 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.
> In most cases you'll find that one or two ways of tagging something
> cover 90 or 95 percent of cases. That's good enough for me...
>> 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.

>> (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";
> I'd say this is true if you are talking about something widely accepted
> like oneway=yes. But if you talk about something more complex, where
> different interpretations are possible and you change tags so that
> things work in *your* routing engine, then that's the wrong approach -
> the tags must describe what is on the ground, and the routing engine
> must be adapted to work with that.

>> 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 >>

>> Cheers,
>> André.
> Bye
> Frederik

More information about the Tagging mailing list