[OSM-talk] Cross-renderer tag support, now with OSMdoc!

[Ulf Lamping]

Am 19.12.2009 14:45, schrieb John Smith:
> 2009/12/19 Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>:
>> It's not up to a "statistical tool" to judge about tags in this way.
>
> Then do it right and include details of the last 6 weeks or so etc,
> are you interested in what's current or what was current 2 years ago?

It's up to you to write a tool like this. I would probably love it.

>> I want to see what *is* in use by renderers, documented in the wiki and
>> used by mappers, not what people think that should be there.
>
> You controdict yourself, since what people think should be there is
> just the step before they tag something, without better references of
> when this was valid thinking it's hard to tell if it's a new trend or
> and old dying trend and people should do something else instead.

But I want to avoid the problems that arises when someone stands up and 
judges whats an old dying trend and what's a new trend. If Steve would 
randomly remove stuff that he thinks is old and irrelevant - would make 
the table probably almost useless for me.

The current table gives an overview of what the current situation is. 
What you are talking about is a trend analysis of what the situation 
might be in some months from now. That is an interesting (but different) 
topic.

If I want to make a map, then I'm probably interested that abutters is 
used n-times, so I can judge myself if I want to add it or not. I'm not 
arguing that having an indicator that it's usage numbers are e.g. going 
up or down would be a big plus to make good educated decisions here.

>> *That* gives the wiki editors, rendering rule writers, ... a good
>> overview what the current situation really is.
>
> Not really, since you are taking a view of old data mixed with new,
> this isn't a good representation of the current situation, it's an
> average of what has happened over the life time of OSM.

But that *is* the current situation. The current situation *is* an 
average of old and new stuff.

>> P.S: Map features don't even mention that abutters are to be phased out
>
> Considering how easy it can be to game things to put them on the map
> features page, and considering how easily other people dismiss what is
> documented there is that a valid argument any more?

So how do the mappers out there know? From the voices inside their 
heads? ;-)

Regards, ULFL