[Tagging] Tagging FOR the renderer

[Kotya Karapetyan]

Though I strongly disagree to the idea of "mapping for the renderer", I
agree that there is a huge problem: a lot of data available in OSM database
is effectively lost because the renderers do not show it. Right now there
is a question whether we should use ref or name to tag parts of the
cemeteries. Logically, it's clearly a "ref". But refs are not rendered, so
no use to the map users, so why would I tag so? Just for the sake of making
database clean?

"Through 20 years of effort, we've successfully trained everyone to use
passwords that are hard for humans to remember, but easy for computers to
guess." (https://xkcd.com/936/)

I would like to ask you: is there a web-site and a smartphone app where I
could see all OSM data and switch things on and off?
That would probably be the answer to the question.

@Dave Swarthout: Have you by chance described your effort anywhere?


Cheers,
Kotya


On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:03 AM, pmailkeey . <pmailkeey at googlemail.com>
wrote:

> I don't know whether this has been discussed or even mooted before...
>
> Tagging for the renderer is natural. Mappers, especially newbies will be
> disappointed their pet new feature they've just added to the db does not
> appear on the map. This situation is no use to anyone but has been allowed
> to continue and 'enforced' with wiki et al going against the notion of
> tagging for the renderer. The problem was likely there in the beginning and
> is still there now - several years later - unresolved. In fact, the way OSM
> is put together, it's completely unresolvable - as people are free to tag
> how they like and the map shows only what the renderers choose to show. I
> have considered that what we see in the editors is the real map and true
> OSM isn't. If the editors had a 'read-only' mode, they'd be far more use
> than OSM proper and mappers would be happier to see their work on the 'map'.
>
> I therefore want to air the view that 'mapping for the renderer' is no
> longer 'wrong' by actually adding a good set of basic tags for areas, lines
> and points ("simple English" as opposed to technical English of 'nodes' and
> 'ways') so that when a mapper invents something new, they can add tags for
> colour, opacity, line colour, line width, line opacity - for areas and
> similar attributes for lines and points (colour, opacity, size etc.) and
> obviously tags for name and description etc. What do people think to this ?
>
> --
> Mike.
> @millomweb <https://sites.google.com/site/millomweb/index/introduction> -
> For all your info on Millom and South Copeland
> via *the area's premier website - *
>
> *currently unavailable due to ongoing harassment of me, my family,
> property & pets*
>
> T&Cs <https://sites.google.com/site/pmailkeey/e-mail>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150516/9132d922/attachment-0001.html>