[OSM-talk] The Return of the Highway tags and other junk

[Ben Robbins]

>So you're deliberately ignoring a common standard, because you don't
>like the level of abstraction?
>That's not really the best way to do it, since that might make your data
>invalid. the sheer amount of data needs a formal way of managing it, so
>adhering to the standard is key there.
>Well I don't care as long as you keep it compatible (a segment tagged
>gate crossing a road, plus a node in the road that is tagged as gate)
>and thoroughly document what you're doing, unless you plan to keep
>maintaining this data for the next 10-20 years at the least.

I fully agree that the best way to do it is to get the data treated the 
same.   I have not made new tags where tags exsist, but as the gate is not a 
node, I have tagged the segment.   I could continue to make up new tags 
where nessesery and not discuss it at all on here, and contue quite 
happilly, but as I also wish for an agreed way of tagging, Im trying to 
discuss it, but evendentily that is asking to much.  If your willing to 
suggest ways to allow the tagging of things, I'm more than willing to 
listen.

>I can't imagine how a correctly
>placed node, as intersection between fence and road, cannot be tagged
>such, that a program can automatically generate the right imaging from
>it, without the need of a segment for the actual gate.

Maybe it can, thats out of my league.  It therefore sounds harder.

>For orientation (foot, car, bike), if the map contains all the gates on
>a way and I know I have to turn right at the third gate what do I care
>if it's a green wooden one or white metal

Although noting that just terning left at the green gate would be 1 method 
of telling the gates apart.  I just tag border=gate.   I personally think 
that is sufficent.

>What happens to your gates in 20years, do you know? Will you be there to 
>update the data?

This thourght has occrued to me, and I don't tag anything that is that 
tempory.  Some of the gates I have tagged have had metal hinges that are old 
to the extent that they have (words to similar effect), made in paulsersbury 
by R.B. smith, and son.   Now thats a few villages away.    The last time 
things where made locally in england was a looooong time ago.  So evedently 
the life of the gate is long.  (Asuming a new gate didnt have new the old 
hinges stuck on).  Usually replacing gates is done with another gate though 
anyway.  So i think this is of little concern for gates.

>so you have
>segment(fence)-node()-segment(gate)-node(gate)-segment(gate)-node()-segment(fence)
>and on the road: segment(road)-node(gate)-segment(road) ?
>the "node(gate)" is the intersection between the two, the () indicate
>tagging/membership of a way tagged in that way.

erm.  This may be the same as what you have put, but to be shore Ill right 
it.

The road would be:   semgnent (road), node (gate), segemetn (road)
The border would be  segment (hedge), node, segment (gate), node (gate) 
segment (gate), node segment (hedge)

>The quickest way and still be accurate within the resolution of OSM.

Yes, I agree.  I disagree that nodeas are as acurate though.  Although I 
think this whole converstion doesnt matter thatn much.  Cant a renderer just 
render nodes if nessesery and segments if nessesery?

>>If you mean where roads split into a grid and gate, along gated roads, 
>>then the road needs to be split anyway, so I don't understand the problem 
>>with that.

>We seem to have quite different viewpoints on how data gets turned into
>information. You seem to underestimate the value of context in that
>process. You can leave out data, if the context provides enough
>additional data to make it an information.

I think I don't understand the original example correctly.  What I have in 
mind is where gated roads split into 2 roads, and one has a gate over and 
the other a cattlegrid.  There is grass between the 2 road bits.  They are 2 
roads for a short period therefore.  Anyway, this doesnt matter to much, its 
moving from the point.

>"I've always done it that way" is not really an argument towards either
>side of the discussion.

Yes,  its not.  I now do it that way as a result of evolving it over a large 
period of time.   I didn't mean to inply that 'Ive always done it that way' 
was my arguemtn!.

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Messenger has arrived. Click here to download it for free!  
http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/?locale=en-gb