[Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Daniel Koć]

W dniu 21.03.2016 21:32, Janko Mihelić napisał(a):
> ned, 20. ožu 2016. 04:55 John Willis <johnw at mac.com> je napisao:
> 
>> This entire subject about mountains is the most infuriating topic I
>> have ever dealt with as an OSM mapper.
> 
> You actually already have all the data you need, and it's on Wikidata.
> Just look at the number of articles about each peak, and render them
> according to that. More articles=rendered at lower zooms. Problem
> solved, and you don't have to put vague tags in OSM.

1.

Interesting idea worth testing, IMO. However I suspect in practice there 
will be lot of problems to make it really fly.

Let's look at the similar simple idea (with scoring based on city type 
and population) used to render city labels in osm-carto in a more sane 
way:

https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1461

Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells me 
just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you depict 
it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city ranking we 
needed.

2.

We have a big problem with peaks. Once I have tried to add peak subtypes 
(with mountain peak as default for backward compatibility), but in 
general it was rejected and is rarely used (see 
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/peak#values - most of them are 
strange service=peak+peak=school for some bus routes in Germany, 
anyway). Elevation alone may be not the only important thing - relative 
height can be also relevant property. And, as John points out, there are 
also some "soft" cultural references which make some peaks much more 
interesting than other, even similar in the physical sense.

Using Wikidata as a base for peaks scoring is worse than basing it on 
population, because it's less universal and relies on one particular 
website, but I don't reject it at this moment.

3.

Let's not forget about transportation. I have read discussion about 
problems, especially about small near-border train stations (being, 
well, "international") and stations in USA (most of them are national, 
despite the country occupies about half the continent). I don't have a 
solution for it yet, but we could craft the definition to catch such 
corner cases, if they are rare enough.

Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and 
is worth using this way or another to indicate importance. 
International/domestic/local fares are rather useful and popular 
description of importance level for railway (and bus!) stations and with 
military/private distinction I guess it could also work with the 
airports.

Maybe the key name should not be "importance" - I just took an 
existing/proposed scheme with some nice defined values and tried to 
extend its scope outside just the railways. While for example "range" 
may be good for transportation, it wouldn't work with peaks, of course.

-- 
"Завтра, завтра всё кончится!" [Ф. Достоевский]