[Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)
johnw at mac.com
Sun Mar 20 03:53:26 UTC 2016
> On Mar 20, 2016, at 3:30 AM, Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
> So far as "importance is concerned, that's not "sourced", that's your
> *subjective* interpretation.
Go google search for:
赤城 (Generic images for Akagi)
赤城神社. (The shrine and related shrines)
赤城山 (the mountian itself)
All the results are for things named after that mountain. There are my sources.
Sources locals understand, because they recognize the connection the mountain and the things named after it.
I can't scoop up images of all the road signs using "mount Akagi" as a control point for direction, paintings depicting the mountain.
I can point to it being one of the "3 mountains of Jomo" and on the list of the 100 famous mountains of Japan" - and to the lack of other mountains being on the list.
I can point to it being labeled as a visible object on the observation deck map for the Tokyo Sky Tree.
But I can't aggravated this into some buzzfeed style listicle "11 mountains in Gunma you should see" - or a GIS database.
Nor can I point to the lack of images for Kessamaru. Do you expect me to somehow meta-aggregate The Internet to show you why some mount and I some region should be labeled more or less prominently than others? Or can we use the power of locally sourced familiarity that OSM is supposed to be drawing from?
This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I have ever dealt with as an OSM mapper.
Q: Can we have some kind of sub-peak tag-relation so we can say "this is a small subpeak of a larger mountian, instead of the subpeaks competing with the main peak for rendering?
A: no. It will get too confusing. And people will want to tag climbing prominence, and that is a big can of worms we don't want to open.
Q: can we use a "hill" tag, so we can separate out these ~100 foot AGL little lumps that are named but shouldn't be rendered as a mountain peak?
A: no, we can't decide where to draw the line, so a 25m AGL mountain and mt Everest get tagged and rendered the same.
Q: then can we use this "local information" for locals to influence when peaks are rendered, maybe using some kind of "importance" tag or something?
A: No, because We don't consider sources in aggregate - we're hoping for some magical, impossible GIS information solution that has never existed and will never exist, because local opinion is "subjective" and we want to be myopic that we are totally dependent on this local subjective nature for a myriad of other tags.
Getting the maps to render this kind of data has always required the opinion of the mapmakers. And OSM takes mappers' opinions with so many other tags - but for this it is unacceptable. for some unexplainable reason and hand wave saying it is somehow not empirical enough.
I can only conclude from these discussions - and comments from people controlling the rendering - that an *objectively* inferior or substandard map is good enough for the group, when it comes to mountains, because people want a data set to improve it that will never, ever exist.
More information about the Tagging