[Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

Phake Nick c933103 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 22 19:08:29 UTC 2020

Excuse me, what is the limitation here against tagging "Extremely long
Amtrak relations"? Some of those Amtrak services, while long, in my
knowledge are still far from the longest in the OSM database, like they're
shorter than the train route between Moscow to Pyongyang, which have been
tagged as a regular relationship with no observable problem to me.
In my opinion, since these long Amtrak service are still just a single
services, with no break or cha.ge of train or change of train number
in-between, it seems outright bogus to tag them separately, and would
confuse anyway who wish to use OSM data to provide navigation involving
such train routes.

在 2020年11月22日週日 19:29,Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> 寫道:

> [cross-posted to talk-us@ and tagging@, please choose your follow-ups
> wisely]
> Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> > It seems that we are increasingly doing things to simplify the
> > model because certain tooling can't handle the real level of
> > complexity that exists in the real world.  I'm in favor of fixing
> > the tooling rather than neutering the data.
> I sincerely hope "I'm in favor of fixing" translates as "I'm planning to
> fix", though I fear I may be disappointed.
> More broadly, we need to nip this "oh just fix the tools" stuff in the
> bud.
> OSM optimises for the mapper, because mappers are our most valuable
> resource. That's how it's always been and that's how it should be.
> But that does not mean that volunteer tool authors should rewrite their
> tools to cope with the 0.1% case; nor that it is reasonable for mappers to
> make stuff ever more complex and expect developers to automatically fall in
> line; nor that any given map has a obligation to render this 0.1%, or
> indeed, anything that the map's creator doesn't want to render.
> The Tongass National Forest is not "in the real world", it is an
> artificial administrative construct drawn up on some bureaucrat's desk.
> It's not an actual forest where the boundaries represent a single
> contiguous mass of trees. Nothing is lost or "neutered" by mapping it as
> several relations (with a super-relation for completeness if you insist),
> just as nothing is lost by tagging Chesapeake Bay with the series of
> letters "c","o","a","s","t","l","i","n" and "e".
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20201123/e671dd0e/attachment.htm>

More information about the Tagging mailing list