[OSM-talk] golf course marking

[David Earl]

On 08/05/2008 13:04, Robin Paulson wrote:
> 2008/5/8 David Earl <david at frankieandshadow.com>:
>> It really, really doesn't matter what the names of tags are for how the
>> system works. They might as well be wibble=wobble for the difference it
>> makes. They are useful as memory joggers, but really no more. So long as
>> the meaning is understood (i.e. written down), just use it as defined
>> and stop worrying about it.
> 
> no, it does matter. if all we want is pretty pictures, it doesn't
> matter. however, if we want to encourage using osm for something more
> innovative than just finding the shortest way from A to B (i would
> hope we do, and hope that most mappers here have more imagination than
> just wanting that), then grouping the tags in a hierarchy makes
> extracting data so much easier

I think you missed my point, which was that the actual _words_ we use 
for the tags don't matter, not that they aren't consistent.

However, the endless arguments about which category something should go 
in make what you're saying unlikely to be effective IMO, especially 
where categories collide (ford and level crossing being two obvious 
examples).

If we're serious about categorisation for this kind of use (and I quite 
agree that it is a good use of data), then the categories to which 
something belongs ought to be properties, as something will often belong 
to more than one category. For example, the building outline of a 
railway station may well want to belong to the "significant building" 
and "railway infrastructure" groupings. Maybe also to the "listed 
buildings" category.

>> I think you just need to accept this is the wording people have come up
>> with and get on with the job, and stop agonising about it.
> 
> accept? you mean, 'inertia rules'? nothing should change? i think
> you're in the wrong place - osm was created precisely to change
> things, to not accept the status quo.
> 
> i have a point, i'm going to argue it, until someone convinces me
> otherwise, or accepts what i'm saying

This debate has been going on for the whole two years I've been mapping. 
We go round and round. Empirical evidence suggests that arguing about it 
isn't going to change anything, only actually doing it.

> and i don't "just need to accept" anything; don't be so damn arrogant

Sigh. Let me be more explicit: "accept it until the system is changed to 
to use some other mechanism". I'd love to see the system changed to be 
more neutral as I have said several times in this discussion, but it 
isn't going to happen any time soon because we have a huge investment in 
what is already there and it would all have to change at once.

David