[talk-au] OpenStreetMap in Government
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
So, its just
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
> 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
> 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
> 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
> its there and usable. If I could get over the idea of calling
> 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.
> On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000000 at gmail.com
> > 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
> > mountain bike
> > trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a
> > "subjective" fact
> > like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical
> > 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
> > objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag
> > "tracktype=grade1", according to the definition "Paved track
> > heavily compacted hardcore" could easily be replaced with
> > 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,
> > clear, verifiable
> > 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
> > 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