[Tagging] Use of highway=track vs highway=service cemeteries, parks, allotment gardens, golf courses, and recreation areas
Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
Mon Mar 1 12:25:38 UTC 2021
Thank you Graeme for raising the issue in Australia, and the reply you
listed here proposes to look in the same way as I was thinking about
initially.
I took a short look at your local tagging guidelines and they look super
and very complete, we can get a lot of good ideas there to develop ours,
especially how you list, integrate and approach the indigenous peoples
rights. Really, huge respect from me to the Australian community !
Regarding the highway tagging we are trying to improve here, are their
other sources besides
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Highways.2C_Roads.2C_Tracks_and_Trails
<https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Highways.2C_Roads.2C_Tracks_and_Trails>
that we should look at that might be of any help ?
Greetings,
Bert Araali
On 01/03/2021 07:55, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote:
> The subject of tracks has also been discussed on the Australian list
> over this last week or so, partially as an off-shoot of this thread.
>
> One of the blokes has made this suggestion:
> "road surfaces change, both overtime and the length of the
> road and there is also the perception of the user.
>
> The Wiki appears to be a shemozzle and it might be a great place to start
> so that in the future we have a uniformed and easy to understand. The
> Taginfo query shows confusion from the editor suggestions and doesn't allow
> easy use by third party apps to render tracks etc.
>
> Could consideration be made to move to a two tier system of surface=paved,
> unpaved and then surface:paved=* and surface:unpaved=* ? Coupling this with
> smoothness would make the data easier to digest and we could merge the
> duplicates or extend the schema to surface:unpaved:gravel=course
> surface:unpaved:gravel=fine etc. ?"
> Definitely worth thinking about!
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 06:30, stevea <steveaOSM at softworkers.com
> <mailto:steveaOSM at softworkers.com>> wrote:
>
> On Feb 28, 2021, at 4:22 AM, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal
> <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com
> <mailto:bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > ... but many of use don't have this historical background, this
> global view. It does however illustrate how the current
> classification causes so much confusion, socio-economic, physical
> appearance, function, legally defined access restrictions, and it
> seems they are all mixed. Maybe we should go for a more general
> review, allow and describe the different nature of classifications
> or at least guidance in how they can and are intended to be used.
>
> Thank you Bert for identifying the crux of what appears to be a
> serious, burgeoning problem in OSM: that of confusion in
> classification (of highways) among various world regions. (It's
> not new, it's been going on since the start of OSM). This feels to
> me to be a potentially fruitful result of this thread.
> Personally, I'm not sure what to do to immediately fix / help, as
> it continues to be a large mountain to climb, but again,
> identifying such a problem is often the first step in having any
> hope or chance of bettering the situation or outright solving it.
> I did not know that the East Africa Tagging Guidelines existed,
> let alone offer important "how to tag around here" navigations for
> many volunteer mappers. Clearly, these conversations exist and
> have been ongoing for some time, but (amazingly!) this is the
> first intersection of them (to my knowledge) with the tagging list
> and for that I am thankful to Bert, Joseph and others (many in the
> HOT group, it seems). The "general review" that you suggest is an
> excellent next step IMO, although it will take significant
> resources I personally cannot contribute except to shine a bright
> light that "here continues to be a significant tagging challenge
> that needs to be addressed globally." I wish us good luck here!
> (A "task group?" Bert connecting with people who are more
> familiar with the specifics of this broader problem than it
> appears to many on this list? People on this list who have just
> had their perspective shifted and now know better how to address
> Bert's issues with aplomb and more-concrete answers? I'm
> exhausting my personal resources here).
>
> >>> (Tagging is) a very closed group, and that it gets hostile
> sometimes because some people who for long participate in it, feel
> like the current tagging and mapping behaviours, and wiki is their
> "work". In some sense it is of course, but the result of that work
> is not reflected in general good mapping and tagging behaviours.
> So the "work" is not done, and it will never be, be more open and
> less hostile for the new emerging OSM mapping communities, views
> and interpretations, "scope" perceptions, without feeling abused
> or attacked for the hard work you have done so far, or what OSM
> has become. Due to the demographics of these new emerging groups,
> most of them young people, they have the perception that the work
> being done so far is not that great, that they can do better, new
> views are not heard, talk groups considered irrelevant and they
> rebel by doing what they want, because they can, they will if they
> find they are not being heard or respected. It has the potential
> to make this whole group, the whole of the OSM project irrelevant
> to them and to create their own fork, within or outside the OSM
> community.
> >>> That's why we locally tend to map these as residential roads.
>
> I get it that (especially younger) newcomers to OSM see what they
> see and think "this isn't that great, we can do better..." as I
> have experienced this before with mappers in my area in exactly
> the same way. While it is work to do this, I (as an "elder" in
> your context) find that what I can and do share is this: Many
> contributors doing our best have worked on this (map) for many
> years with the best of our abilities to speak with one voice.
> Sometimes, what we have done looks scattered, or like it doesn't
> knit together well, or even worse, that it seems to not provide a
> good foundation for newer voices to contribute to the harmony (or
> "emerging harmony"). You identify problems and deficiencies and
> as you do, we all see there are indeed problems. However, what
> OSM now has is the (solid) foundation that there is. It is not
> perfect, but it is good, even very good. Part of making it as
> good as it is and as excellent as it can be is finding ways to
> improve it in the context of how it gets improved, as difficult as
> that seems at first. We would all like a map that has ready-made
> the tools, data and instructions that it takes to continue to map
> the globe as well as we can, but we must also recognize that for
> those of us who have the skills to not only map, but improve these
> other (infrastructural) aspects of OSM, we must improve its
> infrastructure where we can, too. (Sometimes tagging changes,
> sometimes wiki modifications...). Some newer users will be put
> off by this, others will embrace it and see it as an important
> part of the work that must be done to continue to build the map:
> their (YOUR!) specific knowledge of streets and their sorts of
> traffic and use that they have (in YOUR part of the world, how
> people around YOU do things). Yes, it is difficult when that
> differs significantly from how things are done now. But an
> important and wonderful part of OSM is that it has the ability to
> grow into these in positive ways, with many voices mapping with
> harmony. This takes work, work that is of a different nature than
> simply "read a wiki and learn, then go map" which is what many
> would like to believe they can do. Many can. Yet some, in some
> parts of the world, are more challenged than that. So, this elder
> requests of you that you recognize that and please (very much
> please) learn how to build the sorts of structures it takes to do
> that. We eagerly want to help with specifics, we want to answer
> your questions. OSM (as this tagging list's participants) do not
> want to dismiss anybody with "go do this research..." when what
> you identify is that you are asking US for this research. (And I
> apologize for having done that; I'll endeavor to better answer
> specific questions if, as and when I can). Bert, in your case (in
> this list and threads), you are doing a superb job of helping the
> whole world help you and others in your part of the world do this
> better. We are all one map in one world and while the "plain
> vanilla" methods of tagging work for a lot of us, there really are
> strawberry and pistachio flavors, too. The (mildly unfortunate)
> thing is, a lot of people have gotten used to "vanilla" as "the
> only and single, one right way to do things." This elder says
> "there are many flavors in the world." We have methods to improve
> things so that everybody can not only enjoy their flavor of ice
> cream, but that a taste of another can be delicious and satisfying
> too.
>
> I don't know how this will eventually play out in the specific
> case of "highway=track vs. highway=service (parks, golf
> courses...)" all over the world. But we are on the right track
> when we hold all of the above in mind and know that the many
> flavors existing simultaneously (somehow) WILL win in the end. It
> simply has to be this way, because this is how the world is, and
> OSM really is doing a good job of modeling the actual world. Yes,
> we have some work to do to BETTER model some parts of the world
> that don't quite fit into the same model as other parts, this is
> simply part of being a global project. And as vanilla is no
> "better" than strawberry, nor vice versa, we must simply co-exist
> — because there ARE these various flavors of how the world is and
> how OSM models it. I know this is much easier said than done.
> But sometimes saying it is the first, best, early step we can do
> to get there. I'm glad we appear to be doing some of that here
> and I thank all who both have done it before and recognize that it
> is hard work.
>
> >> In our cultures, we ask the elders to get historical context,
> and they are very willing to help us. The answers might not be
> simple, might be long and might be not always all revealing, but
> the elders at least provide them. Here, you get hostile answers by
> just go there and there, use tool A, B, C and D to find out, don't
> ask us because we are tired of providing the same context and
> answers over and over again. We can't, and that is why we ask, and
> that is if you want to be an open community, at least try to
> answer these kind of questions. I don't want to be referred to yet
> another help channel, another tool, spend days and days to
> research OSM's history, because I can't. Not from just an
> economical perspective but many of us also from an educational and
> cultural background are unable to do this.
>
> I hope I stand tall in that tradition here (even as there is much
> more work to do), and ask that others here do so, too. Such
> respect is crucial. What Bert identifies is a very important
> aspect of how the respectful transfer of "knowledge" and "how"
> happens. Period. Not simply in his culture or part of the world,
> but "period, full stop." These are valuable traditions everywhere
> because, simply, "they work." They deserve our respect. In OSM
> there is every reason to continue these traditions.
>
> We can help each other greatly by both recognizing this context of
> knowledge transmission and respecting that there might be some
> rough edges at understanding that sometimes, additional words,
> time or clarity can be required before the right sorts of
> questions are asked to get to the right sorts of answers or
> guidance. We must offer wide latitude of cross-cultural patience
> and allow wonder and awe (that's my experience with such things)
> as they happen. For example, even staying within my own locality,
> one (younger) group of local mappers had such a profound
> difference of understanding of the map from me that even though
> these differences might be explained as simply "generational," we
> were all able to learn from each other, and in the end, not only
> did the map become a better map, but wiki were improved, skills
> were deepened rather broadly and understanding became mutual,
> although, this wasn't always easy and it did take time. So, it
> can be done, and people can end up becoming friends rather than
> contentious with each other! Listening skills, asking for help in
> ways that might seem different or uncomfortable, providing answers
> that might seem obvious at first or take a great deal of thought,
> dialog and research are all important. Be open-hearted and
> listen, please.
>
> I wish the focus to swing back to Bert's specific questions, as
> I've zoomed out pretty far and want to zoom back in to help him.
> I think we all do! Thanks in advance to all here who can push
> this forward in ways I can't.
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20210301/1ecda564/attachment-0001.htm>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list