[OSM-talk] No_comments=yes

[Ben Robbins]

>First off, calm down a bit. Tisn't the end of the world yet :-)

right.  I'm just being blunt.  I'm not anoyed particually, cause if knowbody 
listens I'm quite content just making up my own rulesheet that works.

>>Bridge=yes and Tunnel=yes and all the other=yes.   Why are they keys not
>>values?  Its not primary=yes, hamlet=yes, or parking=yes.  They have all
>>been sorted into cleanly orgransied catagories.  I can understand why the
>>_=yes excists, becuase somethings that seem alike will be needed together.
>>(e.g. layers)  I think the method of putting yes/true after somethign is
>>very messy though.

>Isn't messy when you consider some of the alternatives. Now we could 
>happily
>have something like something=bridge or something=tunnel instead, with the
>minor problem that for the life of me I can't think up a generic enough 
>word
>for the key. You're completely screwed if you get a bridge which is also a
>tunnel, but that doesn't happen very often. But it's specialised enough 
>that
>frankly it doesn't matter if there's a bridge=yes tag. What's a very bad
>idea is degenerating the scheme to something like highway=primarybridge,
>highway=footbridge -- it's a multiplicative expansion in the possible tag
>values with no gain in expressiveness -- it just makes it hard to do
>anything with programmatically.

Well the alternative is features=bridge, or structure=bridge.  Yes it could 
be said it would be a problem if it is a bridge and a tunnel, but I think 
examples where 2 things are in the same spot could be found for anything 
somewhere in the world.  I think in those situations they can be tackled 
seperatly because in 99.9% of all situations this wouldn't happen.   
Highway=footbridge doesn't make sence because the highway would go over a 
bridge.  The bridge in itself is not a highway.  This point also stands for 
other highway tags that already exsists.

>>I proposed features/structures=xyz as a over all catagorie a while ago 
>>after
>>discussion in the IRC.

>I don't do IRC so missed this one. But if you mean something like
>features=some_feature;another_feature etc, then again, nothing gained over
>just making more tags with yes values. What gets lost is that now all the
>editors have to parse the list of features something has instead of just
>checking whether a tag exists. So while it's just as expressive, there's no
>point nor desire from any of the implementors to do it. It's a syntactic
>complication.

The advantage with not having things as something=yes, is that its 
organised. If someone in the future comes along and says that they have 
something called a wizawoza that won't be of any concern.  It would just go 
into a catagorie, rather than have a long debate about its own tagging style 
that in no way links to anything else.  In short it wouldn't polute the 
tagging sceme that was originally laid down.

>>No debate though..no comments. Great, so I come to
>>the mailing list instead of the wiki.  Is the policy currently don't worry
>>about a problem until its killed us?.  I think all these messy tags, and
>>none exsistent or unused tags really need sorting out pronto.  Why not try
>>and stay ahead, and be organised from the start rather than confronting
>>the
>>large self built barriers at a later date?

>I think you've made the classic mistake here of assuming the existence of a
>"policy". This would imply an organisating body setting policy or at least 
>a
>system of allowing descisions on such things to be made. Unfortunately what
>you're faced with is a fairly anarchic project with some vaguely emergent
>tagging consensus propped up with a wiki based voting system which can
>sometimes be very amusing. The closest you get is some sys admin types who
>seem to steer relatively clear of tagging issues, and some core dev guys 
>who
>have far more control than most due to implementing the tagging scheme of
>their choice. Or in other words... you get to set policy by convincing
>enough people that you're right, and coming up with plans people
>implementing editors and renderers want to support.

Well I don't see it so much as an 'organised body'.  In fact I really see it 
as anarchy, but yet people still seem to care.  So its like anarchy without 
the freedom bit.  If people wish to participate in creating a tagging sceme 
then lets just get down to it.  If they don't then why don't a select few 
just agree to one.  Although Anarchy is all fun and games and I can render 
my stuff in a customized osmarender, it would be nice to be able to see 
thing render online, and for that reason I am trying to get some 
organsiation.

>The other thing you have to remember is that most people out there
>(including me most of the time) either don't care or have something more
>interesting to worry about. It is therefore absolutely my personal policy 
>to
>not worry about something until it becomes a problem. Unfortunately rules
>are there to be broken.

Yes.  I have noticed.  The difference between that opinion and mine is what 
I see as a problem is  regardless to if it is myself that is having it or 
not.

>>Nobody answered to my preivous email either.
>>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2007-February/010899.html  .
>>Cheers.

>permissive= seems completely backwards to me. Tags in my head go,
>property_category=actual_value. permissive is a value not a category -- the
>category here is access=permissive. Complicating this is that you can have 
>4
>or 5 things with differing restrictions, so we do foot=permissive for
>pedestrian access, should probably actually be foot_access=permissive, but
>that's a minor ah who cares issue.

It would seem backward to me if it was just saying permissive footway and 
nothing more.  But the thing is, is that anything can be permisive.  I'm 
suggesting it has a similar value to that of a highway.  Highway contains 
different forms wich are primary/secondary etc.  Permissive has different 
forms also wich could in theory be exactly the same.  If it is to be 
footway=permissive, then why isnt it footway=highway?.

>>I have one additional question, but I'll skim over it casue I dought there
>>will be a responce.  Trails.  In a wood or where ever there is nature
>>trails.*  Has anyone done these?  I considered (route_ref=xyz, colour=red)
>>for example.  There is rendering problems with this though, but I won't
>>bother listing them.  If no responce then I shall custom tag, but this
>>will
>>be a problem at some future point.
>>
>>*nature trails not being just footpaths.  But usually suggested circular
>>walks.
>>
>>

>I officially have absolutely no interest in this whatsoever ;-)

Thats fine, and its fine if nobody else does also.  I'm just going to say if 
at some point I see a rule work its way in the rulesheet that covers these, 
I will be sitting here thinking...I did mention that, so I hope that I don't 
have to run over everything altering all my tags becasue people were not 
willing to discuss it at the present time.  This is bascially what has 
happened with bridges/tunnels.  I have been rendering them for some 4-5 
monthswith little problem, and tried to discuss it on the wiki/mailing list. 
After it is ignored the rulesheet comes out with tags on that sort of allow 
tagging to be done, although I can think of examples where Im sceptical as 
to if it will work or not.   I'm not going to bother altering all the bridge 
and tunnel tags that I've added that render fine, simple because it wasn't 
discuessed.  I say that on the basis that this issue of me having to put in 
many hours of work to change them is no fault of my own, but simple the lack 
of interest at an earlier date when I addressed the problem.

In short; I  don't care if people can't be bothered, but don't hold back 
people who can be.

_________________________________________________________________
Have you tried Windows Live Spaces? Tell us what you think! 
https://www.msnfeedback.com/perseus/surveys/961278308/6653c632.htm