[OSM-talk] barrier=gate

[Dave Stubbs]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Karl Newman <siliconfiend at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <nroets at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate.
>> > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the
>> > former.
>>
>> Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm
>> not sure a wiki redirect is the correct way of going about it... but
>> they're essentially the same thing. Obviously highway=gate has been
>> around much longer.
>>
>> >
>> > Is the community OK with this ?
>>
>> Meh.
>>
>> > If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ?
>>
>> Because that would imply the One True Way is to tag gates with
>> barrier=gate. Because it would break every existing gate out there
>> relying on a "legacy" renderer. To get 1/10th already suggest to me
>> shenanigans though.
>> It's not completely impossible to have two tags for the same thing you
>> know. Just leave it be.
>>
>> Dave
>
> This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone proposes
> or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. When
> those flaws are pointed out, the OSM pragmatists just say "Oh, we can always
> change it later. It's a Wiki, after all." But the truth is, you can't change
> it, because when someone does come up with an alternative tagging scheme
> (like barrier= or path= or crossing=) that shows some merit over the
> original, those same pragmatists come back and say "What!? That tag is
> wrong/invalid/stupid because the database already has ten thousand entries
> of X. And besides, you'll break everything!"
>

There's a difference between coming up with a new tagging scheme, and
changing every existing instance in the database.
Note that I haven't actually at any point said that you shouldn't use
barrier=gate. I've actually used it a few times myself, and it's not
destructive on highway=gate. With path and crossing the proposals are
somewhat incompatible with what was there already, and the merit in
not making it compatible wasn't ever obvious.

But there's an expectation here (or more lack of one): I know that if
I use barrier=gate it's not going to get rendered on a lot of stuff.
Fine, my choice, when enough data collects someone will probably patch
the renderer.

On the otherhand if I bot change everything immediately, I'm doing two
things: I'm forcing everyone to do what *I* say, and also I'm making
damn sure that gates won't be rendered. As a render author I have two
choices... patch my renderer, or accuse you of blatent vandalism and
revert your bot... which probably isn't somewhere we want to go.

Dave