[OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

Gervase Markham wrote:
>Sent: 28 February 2008 3:53 PM
>To: talk at openstreetmap.org
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Parking symbols: YUCK!
>
>Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>> That's the point I'm trying to make really. We need to learn to live with
>> all the potential duplication and less than perfect tag data simply
>because
>> that's what OSM is.
>
>But surely the point is that we don't have to "learn to live" with
>anything less than perfect, because we can just fix it. _That's_ what
>OSM is.

I totally agree. In the longer term that's what I would expect. But there is
a potentially long interim that is a dataset that is a made up of all sorts.


>
>All Lester is asking for is an unambiguous definition of what best
>practice is, so that people can know what to do and renderers know what
>they _have_ to support. He's not suggesting we send the heavies round to
>the house of anyone who doesn't follow it.
>

Also agreed A best practice is a good thing provided its really straight
forward and simple and doesn't become a barrier in itself.

>> Anything otherwise just places restrictions on
>> contributors and potentially turns people away from contributing data.
>When
>> the world is effectively complete we may be turning our discussions more
>to
>> making the data set conform somewhat better because that will help users
>of
>> the data. But we have a very long way to go before we reach that point.
>
>Why wait so long to define best practice? We're just storing up work for
>ourselves later. When you map an area, it's just as much effort to use
>system A as system B; but if 50% of mappers are using system A and 50%
>are using system B, then you've just created a lot of unnecessary work
>which could have been reduced by better communication.

We each map in different ways and have a different focus and interests. I
don't think there is one solution to fit all, so easier to work around the
limitations than to try to be too heavy handed.

Cheers

Andy