[OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

[Lester Caine]

Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>> While the access=public applies to car parks - this would be preserved by
>> the
>> general rule of copying the node tags to the area.
>> ANY POI that is changed from node to area will potentially have the same
>> problem, and we should be fixing the general rule not starting to build
>> another set of pages for voting on every POI node/area conflict debate?
> 
> Both nodes and areas carrying the same data in OSM are perfectly valid just
> as a unified approach is perfectly valid if the object is drawn as an area.
> The point is that anything in OSM is allowable and there will be no rule
> enforcement so spending hours debating possible rule ideas is all a waste of
> effort.

And a simple definition of good practice will remove the need for any 
discussion when we start getting similar conflicts with church icons, or any 
other POI.

> Now that doesn't mean to say we shouldn't put ideas up on good practice,
> that's perfectly valid. But don't expect everyone to adhere to it.

And good practice is not to create duplicate references to a single POI. It 
may be appropriate to have SEVERAL POI's that are linked to the one physical 
location, and currently there is no agreement on how that should be handled, 
but there should be some agreement on how we handle the case where duplicates 
exist?

> What we do know is that the renderers will get smatter with time and the
> dataset will become richer. Whether we like it or not, many objects may have
> a degree of duplication whatever guidance is given.

Accidental duplication perhaps  - and that can be corrected just as *IS* 
necessary currently if a node and area give conflicting information. But the 
main problem seems to be the insistence that we have to look at area 
information to resolve these conflicts, and always 'render' something and fix 
the overlaps. The DATA is becoming richer and it does not take much in the way 
of good practice ( Recommendations - Rules ) to ensure that ALL uses of that 
data can be managed without having to resort to additional bodges to untangle 
unnecessary conflicts?
Or perhaps we just have to live with some duplicate results in a search 
telling us different things about the same place?

-- 
Lester Caine - G8HFL
-----------------------------
Contact - http://home.lsces.co.uk/lsces/wiki/?page=contact
L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://home.lsces.co.uk
MEDW - http://home.lsces.co.uk/ModelEngineersDigitalWorkshop/
Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php