[OSM-talk] Suggestions for recycling schema

[Andy Robinson]

Etienne [mailto:80n80n at gmail.com] wrote:
>Sent: 19 September 2006 10:35 AM
>To: Andy Robinson
>Cc: Tom Chance; talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestions for recycling schema
>
>Andy
>There are a couple of really fundamental things that it might be worth
>taking into account if you are doing a rework:
>
>1.  A very clear separation between physical and administrative tags.  For
>example: highway=motorway is an administrative classification,
>highway=steps is a physical classification.  The two values should not
>share the same tag (I was responsible for introducing highway=steps and I
>now see that it is wrong).
>
>There have been plenty of other discussion about describing the physical
>characteristics of a road and the problems of using the highway tag in
>places that have different or no road classification scheme.
>

Agreed 100%


>2.  Implied attributes.  I have seen many cases where roads have been
>tagged with redundant attributes.  For example highway=motorway, car=yes,
>oneway=yes.  IMHO highway=motorway implies car=yes, bicycle=no, oneway=yes
>and all the other rules that apply to roads with motorway status.  This
>principle needs to be highlighted.
>
>Indeed some tags can be thought of as a short hand description of a set of
>lower level tags.  For example, a path might be tagged as highway=footway,
>foot=yes, horse=no, bicycle=no, car=no but this can be described more
>succinctly as highway=public_footpath which is a pretty well defined and
>well understood notion.  Likewise highway=permissive_footpath would be
>shorthand for highway=footway, foot=permissive, horse=no, bicycle=no,
>car=no.
>

Also agreed 100%. For each key or value the default subset of information
should be defined so that it doesn’t need to be added separately. Your
public_footpath being a good example.


Cheers

Andy


>Etienne
>
>
>
>On 9/19/06, Andy Robinson <Andy_J_Robinson at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>	This type of extension raises a question about how far the "Map
>Features"
>	tagging should go and whether we should start splitting off some
>features
>	and attributes beyond those needed for maps and map rendering to
>separate
>	sections outside the Map_Features list itself. I can understand the
>wish to
>	have a recycling annotation or sign on a map but I can only see that
>you
>	would want to know the types of materials recycled if you were
making
>a very
>	specialist map or if you were using the information outside of a
>rendered
>	map (ie information used for other purposes).
>
>	I have no problem putting all of this into Map Features, but since
>I'm
>	slowly getting around to working up the next version it would be
>useful to
>	have feedback. The next version is expected to focus on the primary
>key
>	types as a means of indexing so extended lists of keys and values
>should not
>	be a problem but for the more casual user and those new to OSM it
may
>be a
>	bit daunting if the structure is too deep. I'm for keeping the
system
>simple
>	but with extensibility.
>
>	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 Tom Chance
>	>Sent: 19 September 2006 10:00 AM
>	>To: talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk at openstreetmap.org>
>	>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Suggestions for recycling schema
>	>
>	>Ahoy,
>	>
>	>On Tuesday 19 September 2006 08:34, Etienne wrote:
>	>> recycling:newspaper=yes
>	>> recycling:cardboard=yes
>	>> recycling:glass=yes
>	>
>	>OK, I'll put this onto the proposed features page for further
>discussion.
>	>Thanks for the tips :)
>	>
>	>Regards,
>	>Tom
>	>
>	>--
>	>The struggle against power is the struggle of memory against
>forgetting
>	> - Kundera
>	>
>	>_______________________________________________
>	>talk mailing list
>	>talk at openstreetmap.org
>	> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
><http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk>
>	>
>	>--
>	>No virus found in this incoming message.
>	>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>	>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date:
>18/09/2006
>	>
>
>	--
>	No virus found in this outgoing message.
>	Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>	Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date:
>18/09/2006
>
>
>
>
>	_______________________________________________
>	talk mailing list
>	talk at openstreetmap.org
>	http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date: 18/09/2006
>


-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.5/450 - Release Date: 18/09/2006