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

[Dave F]

Hi André

Assuming or defining a default should be based on the number of 
different values within the set.

For the examples you give:

maxspeed shouldn't have a default. Apart from on motorway classed roads, 
speed limits varies depending on local topography. There will be too 
many exceptions to the rule.

driving_side is defined nationally so has a default. (I'm sure now 
someone will now provide examples where that's not the case).  Any 
router worth its salt, should be able to check which country it is in.

DaveF


On 31/08/2017 12:49, André Pirard wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20170901/6423238a/attachment-0001.html>