[Tagging] RFC: Defaults are paramount, abandoning Proposed_features/ is a HUGE mistake

André Pirard a.pirard.papou at gmail.com
Thu Aug 31 11:49:14 UTC 2017


Hi,

Examples: either each road is tagged with *maxspeed*=*
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed> speed limit and
*driving_side*=* <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:driving_side>
or there are defaults.
I'm reviving this remark because the examples are numerous:

  * The Belgian Flemish community wants to tag *maxspeed*=*
    <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxspeed> on every road
    instead of using a default. Is this a new specification and where is
    it written? Must that now be done in every country?
  * The current language= proposition wants to do it without defining
    defaults. Really? language= on every name= ?
  * Other examples are maxheight in tunnels. Osmose just accused me of
    someone else's omitting maxheight. It shouldn't be necessary if it's
    the default, that is if there is no sign for it, but Osmose likes to
    yell just in case.
  * countless etc.

Please choose.

Either the defaults are in the OSM database and it takes just a
routinely map fetch to get them all updated timely,
or each other router (GPS) writer implements them each their own way
from various random other files. It's not well clear how contributors ca
update all those files instead of OSM and it typically needs a full
software update for each little default change, depending on writer's
availability.

Please choose.

There is a Proposed_features/Defaults
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Defaults> that
puts the defaults in OSM and it's an EXTREMELY HUGE mistake to have
marked such a paramount good work as abandoned because nobody continued
the work.  For the sake of OSM, especially routing, please reopen it.
I don't claim that it is the good solution but I do claim we should work
on such a default database *in priority*.

I didn't analyze it in full depth, but I have the following remarks:
- Why not allow the def keyword in the border relation itself? But it
could be called zzdef to cluster at the key end.
- If a separate relation is preferred, it should be pointed at by a
"defaults" role in the corresponding border or other relations so that
it can be found.
- to ease scanning a border tree upwards, a "parent" relation should
exist in border relations.

In hope of a well structured OSM,

Cheers

André.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170831/0b6fb32d/attachment.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list