colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Fri Aug 5 13:51:41 UTC 2016
On 2016-08-05 14:59, Andy Allan wrote:
> On 5 August 2016 at 13:41, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> What I meant was, having established that some (many?) schools will need to
>> use the MP model, all consumers (for this data) will need to be ready to
>> process MPs anyway.
> Our mapping conventions are based on our mappers, not consumers. As
> you say, it's easy for the consumers to handle both situations, but
> it's harder for mappers to deal with multipolygons-with-one-outer than
> just a basic closed way.
> Multipolygons are there to deal with the difficult situation, not to
> make the most common situation more complicated.
> We *must* keep putting the mappers first.
IYHO.... IMHO we need a healthy balance and should address the needs of
all the stakeholders and participants in the ecosystem, and not blindly
prioritise "mappers". Most of the energy wasted on these mailing lists
and in creating things in the wiki comes from mappers - not because
there is no way of modelling something, but because there are so many
different ways. IMHO it would help to apply a bit more of a scientific
approach to our tagging schema design to reduce the unnecessary
complexity. We are modelling the world, which is a very complex entity.
Making the right choices about how to reduce the real-world complexity
to something manageable and yet still useful is a skill which not
everyone possesses in equal measure.
And, yes, I meant to say "wasted". Far too often it goes round in
circles and leads to no consensus/conclusion.
This blog from Michal Migurski also seems to suggest that the
traditional "craft mapper" is no longer central to OSM's future:
Anyway, I was only intending to offer a different perspective on the
discussion, not to start a war.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-GB