[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - learner driver
gdt at ir.bbn.com
Tue Jun 28 13:56:27 UTC 2016
Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com> writes:
> In OSM whenever there's been a choice between "making things harder
> for routers/renderers" or "making things harder for mappers" it's the
> former that tends to be chosen, because map consumers can at least
> automate what they do, and new mappers are hard to come by.
> To take another example - should a router for GB assume that
> highway=track is public access, all other things being equal? I'd say
> that it depends - yes for Scotland, no for England and Wales. This has
> to be a decision taken by the data consumer since the wiki isn't much
> help, as
> doesn't mention "track" and
> is a bit of a pudding rewritten by someone who didn't really
> understand access rules. This means that data consumers need to come
> up with a "best guess" as to what mappers (most of which won't have
> ever read the wiki of course) actually meant.
I'm not arguing that we should make things harder for mappers. My point
is that these default rules can be expressed in machine-readable form,
so that the work of maintaining and expressing them can be done once,
rather than for every router and renderer.
I realize I am not offering code. In situations like this, there needs
to be some consensus on whether that's a good idea before someone will
make the effort to do it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 180 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging