[Tagging] new page for tree_lined=*

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

>> On 15. Aug 2020, at 13:47, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> I oppose such potential removal


here is an example:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Highways

this is maybe not bad as a general overview, but then it duplicates significant part of the information from the individual pages, without being exhaustive though, hence contradicting sometimes the specific tag pages. In other words, people who want to inform themselves have to read more (because they will read the same thing multiple times) and will remain confused by the contradictions.

The page is actually very poor, due to some severe errors, e.g.
“ Motorways are sole roads that are tagged based on physical characteristics and tagged with highway=motorway and highway=motorway_link.”

to me, this seems utterly nonsense, as motorways are legally defined (and also because there are other highway classes where the distinction is by physical characteristics, e.g. path vs. track).


Also the following sentence hurts: “There is group of roads are tagged based on importance in road network”

This is supposed to be the introduction to roads in OpenStreetMap, can there really be so many orthographic errors? What’s the image we are conveying, how much would you think you can rely on information that is presented with this level of care?


Another example: “ highway=unclassified is a bit special here, given confusing name (it is not for roads that are not classified) and has no link variant”

-> It does not say what unclassified is used for, only what it isn’t.

Another example from the summary page: “ highway=path needs tags to designate what traffic is legally allowed or may be appropriate. Use access=*, bicycle=*, foot=* and other access tags.”


This is actually wrong because path does not “need” other qualifying tags in general, and because the generic „access“ should not be added to a path typically. 
There is also no mention of „designated“ as value for bicycle or foot, so without reading the path page it is not helpful.


Other problems are that it doesn’t make clear that the highway also represents sidewalks. For example the sentence “If only buses are allowed then access=no together with bus=yes would be appropriate.” is only true for a road or carriageway without sidewalks, because this will also prevent pedestrians from being routed over this way.

I would prefer to give relevant information on  https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway which gives an overview as well, transfer otherwise missing stuff from the “Main Article” and delete these overviews, as apparently nobody is interested in keeping an eye on them against well meaning but ultimately defacing “improvements”.

I could go on (or improve the page, which I have also just done, regarding bridges), but IMHO the problem is we have only limited capacities so we will have to concentrate our efforts. Having the information on less places is not bad, let’s start by removing these well meaning duplications ;-)
Or make reviewed versions of these (thinking of them as introductions), and block them from general editing. Changes could still be applied, but would have to be discussed and approved before they went live (more a kind of git style), not for the wiki in general, but for these “Main articles” (and not instantly, but after we all have looked through the current state and removed at least the obvious errors ;-) ).

Cheers Martin 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20200815/f660758d/attachment-0001.htm>