[OSM-talk] Prolification of the amenity tag

[bvh]

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 09:53:29AM -0000, Andy Robinson wrote:
> While I agree on gpx uploads of flightpaths being withheld from OSM I do
> that only because it confuses. However with respect to other geo data that
> represents physical features (and the wifi access point hardware is a
> physical feature) then why do we care what type of geo data the database
> holds. I'm concerned that we are not thinking outside the box if we set
> restrictions based on traditional mapping. If my kids want to produce a map
> of all the bubble gum machines in the area why would I not want to let them
> (tooth decay permitting!), they would be producing an innovative map and one
> which has value to a certain group of society. It was the potential for this
> innovation in mapping that drew me to OSM in the first place.

My main concern against allowing an unlimited amount of geo information is 
* more features means more outdated information (especially
with quickly changing stuff like wifi zones, shops, etc), harming
the credibility of other information also in the database
(Note missing information is better than wrong information)
* more features means a bigger hurdle in participation for everyone
involved
* more features make it more difficult to edit the map. Theoretically
the editing tools should take care of that. But currently they are not
yet good enough, so the concern is real
* by accepting this data we may cut short the birth of a better
adapted "openyellowpages" scheme. For example it is
impractical to search for "butchers in Gent" using the data
model of a map. It would be trivial in a listings data model.
* bad priorities. While this is a voluntuur project and we can't
decide for others how they should spend their time, we can try
to steer them. Eg. I think it is more usefull for people to add
a new street than to add the location of their local butcher.
* more distinct features make it more difficult to refactor the 
database if we ever need to (I believe this to be very likely)

> The counter argument is that the location of bubble gum machines should be
> held in someone else's database. Fine if it exists and is free and open. But
> in reality few sites are collecting data right now in the way OSM does and I
> think we should encourage others to go forward with this rather than block
> them from the head start they can gain by using existing OSM data. Look at

I would totally encourage a new openyellowpages project to take as
much advantage of the _data_ provided by openstreetmap. It would only
make sense to do so and I mentioned that in my original mail also.

> Freethepostcode, ok its not within the OSM database as such but its founded

EXACTLY my point. Freethepostcode is a success _because_ it has its
own adapted database that meshes nicely with Openstreetmap. The same
should happen for a listing of butchers, wifihotspots or whatever.

> Thus personally I believe that there should be few restrictions on the type
> of geo data but that the way information is tagged and associated needs some
> additional work. Bubble gum machines are arguably not an amenity although I
> think wifi access points certainly are in our modern world. Improvements in
> the extensibility of the Map Features tagging schema is something I'm
> working on and hopefully will make some of these issues less contentious.

Could you elaborate a bit more on this?

cu bart