[Talk-GB] Moderation (WAS: Primary or Trunk? PITA?)

[Andy Robinson]

For those who need to know the origins of the trunk/primary tag you need to
go back to the very first version of Map Features, which I hold my hand up I
developed. At the time I researched a lot of things but clearly not
everything in detail and as a result I have a number of regrets that some
tags that are now used worldwide aren't perfect. The trunk tag may be one of
them as I'm sure if I had researched a little more in detail at the time I
would have spotted, as TomH eloquently points out, we had moved on in the UK
to a Primary  Route Network definition. But then again, would it apply to
very country?

I think the root of the issue, as its been raised many times in the past, is
that I didn't have the foresight for highways to separate out the physical
descriptions from the administrative and legal ones. After all we were only
tagging segments with simple tags at the time.

I noted last week that there are those who wish to change the
highway=bus_stop tag to something that slots it in with public_transport
mapping. I have no problem with any of that, objects can receive additional
new tagging at any time to fit in with the bigger picture. I can see a time
in a decade or so when there are lots of new tags, defined by a new wave of
mappers who see the needs of OSM (and its uses) differently from the way
many of us see things today. That's fine too, the project is meant to be
organic.

Anyway, enough of the history lecture, let's please remember we are all
friends here, we all share a common enjoyment and goal.

Cheers
Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Hughes [mailto:tom at compton.nu] 
Sent: 04 November 2013 08:35
To: Rob Nickerson; Talk-GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Moderation (WAS: Primary or Trunk? PITA?)

On 04/11/13 00:23, Rob Nickerson wrote:

> To summarise: a simple question was asked entirely inocently, and I am 
> 100% sure that it was not meant to belittle 10 years of tagging. An 
> answer was given in quite a "matter of fact" tone which in face to 
> face communication would be fine but due to the un human nature of 
> email could be interpreted as negative. Again I am 100% sure it was 
> not meant negatively. Similarly I have had many positive conversations 
> with Chris, so hopefully his response was purely down to a 
> misinterpretation of the emails.

I'm sorry, did I miss the point where somebody (other than you it seems) had
a problem with the tone of my reply? As far as I can see the only complaints
were about the (unacceptable IMHO) behaviour of chilly in his off list
reply.

Yes, my initial sentence about this having been discussed to death before
may have been a bit short I guess, but the vast majority of my email was
explainging the rationale behind the tagging.

> Lessons:
> * We should be able to explain the reasoning behind our tagging if asked.

Absolutely, and I believe I did so.

Tom

--
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3426 / Virus Database: 3222/6806 - Release Date: 11/03/13