[Talk-GB] Guidance for adding PRoW to OSM: prow_ref=
richard at systemed.net
Fri Jan 4 17:27:12 GMT 2013
Barry Cornelius wrote:
> Robert Whittaker wrote:
> > I wouldn't have thought that listing the authority would be
> > that useful -- you should be able to work that out from the
> > county that the way resides in.
> My view is that it would be useful to include the id of the council
> as I do not think it's obvious which authority is involved. For
> example, the data for Devon does not include Torbay.
I agree with Robert. OSM is a geographic database. We should (and do) have
boundary polygons for Devon County Council, Torbay Council (unitary
authority), and so on. Finding out which authority is responsible for the
path is simply a matter of querying the database to find out whether a
point/line is within this polygon. Many sites using OSM data already do this
sort of query as a matter of course.
As a general principle, we optimise for the mapper. Mappers are our most
important resource, therefore we make it as easy as possible for them to
enter the data, and minimise the 'barriers to entry' - tagging rules they
have to learn before they can enter data. One way we can do this is by
reducing unnecessary duplication - such as entering tags when in fact the
information can be inferred from a boundary polygon.
By analogy, we don't tag roads as ref=A361, operator=Devon County Council.
In line with the principle of optimising for the mapper, we only tag the
exceptions, which in this case are Strategic Roads (ref=A38,
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Re-Guidance-for-adding-PRoW-to-OSM-prow-ref-tp5742085p5742800.html
Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the Talk-GB