[Tagging] how to map simple buildings

"Christian Müller" cmue81 at gmx.de
Sun Mar 5 20:11:42 UTC 2017


> Gesendet: Sonntag, 05. März 2017 um 20:22 Uhr
> Von: "Peter Barth" <osm-tagging at won2.de>
> An: "Tag discussion, strategy and related tools" <tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> Betreff: Re: [Tagging] how to map simple buildings
>
>
> you're probably more than 10 years late with that and there had
> been many to suggest great new database schemata, great to
> evaluate tagging methods and what not. The success of OSM is (in
> part) based on the concept of "the simplest thing that could
> possibly work".

Despite your nagging, it does not hurt to /re/search and reevaluate
design decissions made. Loosing the ability to question them, being
rigid with what you got is OSMs ticket to irrelevance. In part it
has also been flexibility of the community that made some of OSM
successful (not everything about it is).

"What is the simplest thing?" is raised by the concept you argue on.
If this is open to perception, its not a bad thing to account for
several ways to do the same thing, since it allows people to co-op
that are very different in nature and thinking.

It might not make sense to drive this to a point of indifference,
but without any tolerance you will end up with a simple answer:

The simplest thing that does work, is _no_ OSM.  We've had the
world live without it.


> Relations just make things worse. Mappers even screw up simple
> multipolygons all the time and that's actually something where
> relations make sense in the absence of an area type.

Ok, this is your pov. Here is mine: Relations are what made OSM
successful in the start.  Between the people who do, between
geographic objects that are to be represented, between points.

Strictly speaking, even a simple way is just that:
A relation of points.

So please, do not be so fatal with your judgement. It is in OSMs
nature to be unfinished and while we argue, others /do/ work to-
wards it's completion. And for most of the time you will find
more than one person being at fault for having broken things
temporarily:

It also depends on your experience what to consider broken.

In my mind two adjacent areas that arbitrarily overlap and
show no-man's-land artefacts over the length of their common
border in rendered output, are not just plain ugly, but wrong,
since it does not represent "what's on ground" - and that's
another popular concept OSMs success is based on.


Greetings




More information about the Tagging mailing list