[Tagging] natural=ridge vs natural=arete

Mateusz Konieczny matkoniecz at gmail.com
Thu Nov 6 07:44:55 UTC 2014


"This doesn't matter in this particular case, because natural=ridge and
natural=arete were approved at the same time."


It is about futureproof solution - new values may appear and break existing
data consumers. Adding subtags would not cause problems like this.

"That's why we have a wiki with descriptions."

Is is better to have general tags that are usable without checking wikis.
Also, definition of arete is fuzzy by itself (see post by Alan Trick "Most
of the things that the Wikipedia refers to as aretes are coloquially
called ridges here")

"Your argumentation is based on practical issues, but essentially your
considerations are merely theoretical."

No, I am using OSM data in two projects
- map of cycleway-related data, currently in planning stages
( https://github.com/mkoniecz/bicycle_map_of_Krakow )
- contributing to Default style
( https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/ )

I can assure you that cascading tag scheme is way easier to support,
at least in my opinion.


2014-11-06 6:38 GMT+01:00 Friedrich Volkmann <bsd at volki.at>:

> On 05.11.2014 07:19, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> > And it is not just because with the second solution new values
> > for main tag will quickly appear (see building=*).
>
> This doesn't matter in this particular case, because natural=ridge and
> natural=arete were approved at the same time.
>
> > With second
> > scheme there is much smaller pool of people that really understand how
> > main_tag should be processed and tagged.
> >
> > For example I have enough general knowledge to implement support for
> > natural=ridge (everybody knows what it means), but with natural=arete it
> > would require at least some learning about specialist terms. Currently I
> > have no idea is this tag is even correctly spelled - Wikipedia defines
> arete
> > as "term meaning "virtue" or "excellence"." - and ridge related article
> is
> > titled "arĂȘte". I also have not enough knowledge to decide whatever
> > something is ridge or arĂȘte, is it clear term or something fuzzy.
>
> That's why we have a wiki with descriptions. When you find a description
> fuzzy or misleading, please improve it.
>
> > Yes, I can learn about it - but I worry about the same happening for more
> > things. I am NOT interested in learning about how to recognize different
> > different power tower types, I want to tag just power=tower and leave
> > further classification to power enthusiast that will use subkeys so
> > rendering power towers on my map will be easy to implement.
>
> Your argumentation is based on practical issues, but essentially your
> considerations are merely theoretical.
>
> As a data consumer, e.g. when you want to render power towers in a 1:25000
> map, you are well advised to have a look at the subtags. Maybe there are
> power tower types which represent power towers so small and unimportant
> that
> you find it better to omit those on your 1:25000 map.
>
> --
> Friedrich K. Volkmann       http://www.volki.at/
> Adr.: Davidgasse 76-80/14/10, 1100 Wien, Austria
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20141106/9b236401/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list