[talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government

David Bannon dbannon at internode.on.net
Tue May 14 11:41:37 UTC 2013


Ah, waldo00...., I guess I may have jumped the gun a bit, sorry ! I
initially misread your message as saying subjective tags are a no-no.
Can I paraphrase you ? Use objective tags if possible, then, if
necessary, subjective ones determined by some sound guidelines
documented on the wiki ?

We are marching side by side so far ....

However, I don't think we have suitable, sound guidelines on the wiki !

I tried to get some support for extending tracktype= (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo ) but not enough people
were interested. I did not consider it a great solution but was one that
would work. Then tried to get some other consensus solution, again, not
enough interest. 

So, its just
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads


Sigh ....

David


On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 15:47 +1000, waldo000000 at gmail.com wrote:
> David, to me your response seems to be mostly in agreement with what I
> said. On what point, exactly, do you disagree?
> 
> 
> Do you at least agree that a useful tag is one whose meaning is either
> 1) immediately obvious (e.g. like width=*) OR 2) clearly/objectively
> described in the wiki?
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Bannon
> <dbannon at internode.on.net> wrote:
>         
>         I am not sure I agree with you Waldo0000.. (???).
>         
>         Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any
>         nature) to think
>         about how that data will be used. While we will often find
>         other use
>         cases later on, addressing the primary one is important.
>         
>         I think very few users of map data are prepared to, eg,
>         install mapnik
>         or grep through the downloaded data relating to a particular
>         road they
>         may consider using. Instead, they want to get a idea of just
>         how
>         passable a road might be. They are asking a very subject
>         question and
>         expect a subject answer.
>         
>         They want to know if its a sealed or not. If not, they will
>         ask if its
>         suitable for a conventional car, an SUV, a 4wd, a "blood and
>         guts 4wd".
>         Armed with that info, they look at their own car and their
>         willingness
>         to take risks and/or have some fun.
>         
>         Thats all very subjective ! My point is, most of that process
>         is, of
>         necessity, completely subjective, not just the tagging we are
>         talking
>         about here.
>         
>         The smoothness= tag
>         ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness
>         ) tries to address this, but smoothness is quite often not the
>         issue and
>         the values given to smoothness= are simple horrible (pun
>         intended). (I
>         suggested, in the past, we should alias something like
>         'drivability' to
>         'smoothness'). Anyway, smoothness= has all those subjective
>         problems,
>         its there and usable. If I could get over the idea of calling
>         my
>         favorite tracks 'horrible', I'd use it !
>         
>         
>         So, at the risk of being called politically incorrect, I think
>         we need
>         to collect data that can and will be used.
>         
>         David
>         
>         
>         On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000000 at gmail.com
>         wrote:
>         > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett
>         <stevagewp at gmail.com>
>         > wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         >         Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up
>         >         information into
>         >         lots of little "objective" facts, like (in the case
>         of
>         >         mountain bike
>         >         trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a
>         >         "subjective" fact
>         >         like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical
>         to
>         >         collect that
>         >         much information, and it's impractical to combine it
>         back into
>         >         a
>         >         usable form for data consumers, so we lose twice.
>         >
>         >
>         > The important point is that a subjective tag at least needs
>         an
>         > objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions
>         on
>         > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag
>         > "tracktype=grade1", according to the definition "Paved track
>         or
>         > heavily compacted hardcore" could easily be replaced with
>         the
>         > objective tags "surface=paved" or "surface=compacted".
>         >
>         >
>         > I would argue that entering objective facts (e.g.
>         "surface=*" in the
>         > previous example) is a much better option than subjective
>         tagging. It
>         > requires no more information than you already have, and is
>         no less
>         > practical for data consumers. It's actually more powerful,
>         specific,
>         > clear, verifiable
>         (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability),
>         > and reduces the dependency of mappers and consumers on the
>         wiki to
>         > make sense of the data.
>         >
>         >
>         > Point is: if you insist on using subjective tags as a
>         short-cut,
>         > please, please at least ensure they have objective
>         definitions in the
>         > wiki.
>         
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > Talk-au mailing list
>         > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>         > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 





More information about the Talk-au mailing list