[OSM-talk] SteveC should decide

Dave Stubbs osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Tue Oct 6 18:21:38 BST 2009


On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Gervase Markham <gerv-gmane at gerv.net> wrote:
> On 06/10/09 15:18, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>> a) what are you actually marking?
>>   - no name in OSM -- we know that already
>>   - the mapper didn't find a name -- so we shouldn't check again?
>
> Probably not, no. Just as when a mapper adds a postbox, someone else
> doesn't think "he's added a postbox. I should go and check that there's
> actually a postbox there". I agree that in this case you are noting a
> negative, not a positive, and that's more unusual. But I think the same
> principle applies. You trust other mappers to map sanely unless there's
> evidence to the contrary.
>
>>   - the road definitely hasn't got a name -- it definitely hasn't got a
>> swimming pool in the middle of it either, but I'm not putting
>> swimming_pool=no
>
> Right. But most roads have names, and names are useful for navigation.
> Names being missing when they shouldn't be is therefore bad.

Right, that's why we highlight them at all.
It doesn't then follow that names being missing when they should be is
also bad, which is the point here.

>
> The "swimming pool" point is a slippery slope argument, but in fact the
> slope isn't at all slippery. Names are different to swimming pools.
> AFAIK, no-one has genuinely suggested swimming_pool=no, or in fact any
> other =no type thing apart from names.

I agree, simming_pool=yes, incline=yes would definitely be a slippery slope.
But actually yes, they have suggested other tags for no. Examples
include the language variants so noname:es=yes, refs, to entirely
generic systems of tagging designed to specify any tag you like as
deliberately not put on.

In general we do not tag negatives, you regard name as somehow special
in this regard which is of course up to you, but I don't.

>
>>   - mappers don't go looking for unnamed streets that definitely have
>> no name -- well, whatever, they can put the post boxes and address
>> data in while they're there.
>
> Except that many people like to map with a method that gets the map to a
> base level of usefulness (say, all roads present and correctly named)
> across an area first, and then add details later.

Sure, but if you're chasing a single unnamed road then you've already
hit that level of completion anyway. Obviously if you don't want to
map that extra level of detail you don't have to, but hey, what else
you going to do :-)

> [snip]
>
> What I don't get is why people opposed to marking noname roads as noname
> actually mind. What offends you about tags you don't care about?

Personally, nothing. As I said YMMV, there are different opinions, tag
how you want.

Russ asked for a decision to be made. I made it. He asked for an
explanation, I gave it. And I'm almost certain he doesn't agree, but
then that's what happens when you ask for someone else's advice :-)

Dave




More information about the talk mailing list