[Talk-GB] access:psv
Warin
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Oct 13 22:52:36 UTC 2016
On 14-Oct-16 05:22 AM, Gregory wrote:
>
> I agree with what Chris says.
>
> I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone
> messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with
> more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss
> new data that mapper adds, they will likely be unaware of your mass
> manual edit.
>
> As an occasional data consumer, I have also used tags on non-public
> projects because I once looked at a local area (or did mapping of it
> myself) and saw what was used. Why is it fair that you break my system
> without even contacting people who mapped with those tags?
>
"MY system"? Really. Once it is 'in' OSM it is no longer 'yours'. I
think of OSM as a community .. diverse but all want a map.
Where a tag is undocumented on the wiki then it is very open to
interpretation ... and the interpretation could well be that the tag is
an error.
There are probably at least 40,000 different ways of tagging the same
object ... by using the wiki documented methods the data becomes more
usable, consistent, understandable rather than fragmented and confusing.
While upsetting a single mapper is not good, that could be better than
upsetting many more.
> From the east coast main line,
> Gregory.
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2016 6:53 PM, "Chris Hill" <osm at raggedred.net
> <mailto:osm at raggedred.net>> wrote:
>
> Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and
> you added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my
> objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should
> proceed as you see fit and so will I.
>
> I have written about this process more than once in the past, for
> example
> http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html
> <http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html>
>
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>
> On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
>
> Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only
> 127, two of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus,
> which surely ought to be just bus=*, and one single instance
> of access:psv:maxweight
>
> Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging
> schemes if I feel that the tagging is correct and likely to be
> repeated elsewhere. But I don’t believe that this is. It is
> unexpected, and it is undocumented. I haven’t looked to see if
> it is one user, or 127 different users. But either way it is
> at most 127 out of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently
> had last month according to a different thread today. And the
> whole purpose of me asking was, anyway, to find out if people
> had a real need to tag in this unusual way before I changed
> it, rather than to be told that if you found me doing it,
> you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.
>
> Regards,
> Stuart Reynolds
> for traveline south east & anglia
>
>
>
> On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F
> <davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
> <mailto:davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>
> <mailto:davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com
> <mailto:davefoxfac63 at btinternet.com>>> wrote:
>
> Stuart
> I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
> Compared with 77857 for psv=*
>
> Chris
> If they're to signify different entries, what are those
> differences.
> If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of
> access:psv. If there is none, they should be change as
> clearly more users are expecting psv=*
>
> If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then
> there's no harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a
> consumer to validate the data.
>
> DaveF.
>
>
> On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
>
> Please don't change the tags to suit your application.
> If every data consumer changed the tags they don't
> like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by doing
> that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster -
> mappers are our most precious resource.
>
> Change your processing to include both types of
> tagging. It is not hard to do, you write the code once
> and use it whenever you need to in the future.
>
> Cheers, Chris (chillly)
>
> On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds
> <stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk
> <mailto:stuart at travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote:
>
> Greetings all!
>
> In Nottingham in particular there are a number of
> roads marked
> with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I
> would normally
> expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and
> more importantly
> (to me) so would my contractor who is importing
> the data. I’ve
> checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to
> agree with the
> contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.
>
> There are only 275 instances of access:psv
> worldwide, and I
> propose to change those (manually) in the areas
> that I am
> concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you
> know, in case
> anyone has any violent objections or wonders what
> I am up to.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
> <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20161014/b3b37af3/attachment.html>
More information about the Talk-GB
mailing list