[OSM-talk] motorvej=motorway=autobahn?

Andy Robinson Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk
Wed Sep 6 08:17:17 BST 2006


Thomas et al,

There have been various discussions about better definition of the Map
Features tagging format. As the writer of the original set of tags I was
seeking a way to move away from the "class" tagging that was being done
exclusively at that time. Therefore my emphasis was on solving that problem
and keeping the system simple rather than any deeper meaning. It was also
English specific and expansion for other languages and groups was not
considered.

There are four aspects which I would propose to address in any future Map
Features tagging set.
1. Make sure the new set is backwards compatible with the old
2. Ensure that all physical land features and features bolted to the ground
can have their physical properties appropriately tagged.
3. Permit two levels of tagging. The first as it is now, a simple tagging
system with no required namespace
4. A method, probably namespace, for duplicating the format of the general
scheme to accommodate: language, location, special interest etc grouping.
Although with the emphasis still on map rendering rather than anything else.

I had plans a while back to start working on a new set but time has been
pressing. Unless someone else has a clear idea of what's needed I am still
expecting to get to it sometime. For now it's good that these discussions
occur and ideally thoughts and requirements from different users get noted
on the wiki. The essence of these can then be used to create any new tags
and format. If French users have some thoughts on administrative road
classification or any other aspect of Map Features type tagging (ie tagging
for map rendering) then it would be useful to have these on the wiki. It
would help me if the explanation is in English although perhaps a
translation of the French would be best to encourage French use.

Finally a word of warning. There are some here, myself included, that wish
to see tagging as a freeform art, while there are other specific groups who
benefit from straightjacketed tagging rules, I believe those interested in
navigation systems fit that category. Any new set of tagging ideals needs to
make it very easy and suited to creating freeform tagging as well. There are
few examples of such freeform use at the moment (map output that is) which
is a concern. On the whole there seems to be a wish to propose and vote on
tags. Proposing tags before you extensively use them is probably a good
thing to avoid clashes and unnecessary duplication. But I personally don’t
feel any tag needs a vote. If you like a tag please just go ahead and use it
and add it to the Map Features page or a special interest page of your
making, ideally with a note as to what it means and why you are using it. If
in the future you or others decide there is a better tag for the same thing
it's easy to swap out one for the other. A simple tool will wander through
the database and add the new tag based upon the details of the old one
(leaving the original in place if appropriate).

Finally a question? Map Features was aimed at map rendering and I think its
best left that way. Therefore for those other groups needing a defined
rather than freeform set of tags can we agree to develop these separately
and if so how should we distinguish between then or should they happily
intertwine. I'm anxious that we don’t make the key and value names over
complex, especially while at the moment most are entered manually by the
user rather than automatically by the editing software.


Cheers

Andy

Andy Robinson
Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:talk-
>bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Walraet
>Sent: 06 September 2006 12:57 AM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] motorvej=motorway=autobahn?
>
>pgroad a écrit :
>> As a Dane I find it strange to see Denmark mapped using UK (I guess)
>> terms and distinctions. Is it totally without merit to map an area in
>> local terms? If it is, I think it will be difficult to convince
>> non-mapoholics to contribute to the mapping process.
>
>There was a few messages on the talk-fr list about using or not the
>english system.
>To sum up :
>
>- Everybody (not quite a lot of people actually...) seems to agree on
>using "Map feature" for the moment, to take benefit of the slippy map
>colouring, osmarender "default" rendering, etc. (Note: it doesn't mean
>we shouldn't think of another system)
>
>- We talk about what "highway" value we should use for what type of
>road. Should it be done accordingly to a French administrative
>classification, or to the road "importance" in term of width or traffic
>capability ?
>
>- Should we define a new tag for the French administrative
>classification ? Some answered that the "ref" tag may be sufficient as
>in France the reference first letter give the road class (A15, N7, D722)
>
>
>Now, my personal part :
>
>"Map Feature" page actually contains 2 sorts of things :
>- The "highway" tag, that is bound to English administrative classification
>- The rest of the page, that defined tags based on observable facts.
>(and thus, is naturally not England specific (the fact that English
>words are used is _really_ not a problem in my point of view))
>
>It's a good thing to enter administrative classification in OSM, but we
>should also agree on a way to enter the "ground-based" observable type
>of the road. (let's say in a "foobar" tag for the rest of this post)
>
>If a renderer want to output maps with an unified look for the whole
>world, it could based the graphic rendering on the foobar value. The
>compatibility with highway tag (or other future country-specific system)
>could be kept by assigning a default foobar value to every highway
>values (and override this default value if both tags are present).
>
>
>I was thinking of this since quite a time... I have a bad habit of
>thinking a lot and never do anything[1], but I will really try to
>provide a wiki page and a working osmarender rules files in a near future.
>
>PS: How to call a classification base on observable facts ? I used
>"ground-based", but I'm not sure it's good in English language for what
>I meant.
>
>
>
>[1] It's perfect for self-satisfaction to never make the things you
>think about. You avoid confrontation with all the problems that you
>haven't think about, and so you can persuaded yourself that your ideas
>are really brilliant. And when someone else spent lot of time and effort
>in doing something that looks like what crossed your mind before, you
>can watch the final result and tell that you could have done the same
>thing (Which is wrong, since you never do anything).
>http://linuxfr.org/comments/262429.html#262429 ;) (french-speaking old
>post)
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk






More information about the talk mailing list