[OSM-talk] RFC: what are empty nodes and how should we use them?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Peter Wendorff wrote:
> Deletion of attribute-less objects will never be a problem, as long as 
> nobody tries to get information from that objects (not included from my 
> point of view).

Wrong because someone could try to build an object from them in the next 
step.

> Of course the tactics like "I make three dots to mark for myself, that 
> it needs further work there" will fail in that cases. But what's the 
> problem in adding a fixme-attribute to that data?

There is no "problem" in adding a fixme attribute. Many people indeed do 
it because they like it better. Some people put three dots because they 
like that better. We don't have to force everyone to do it the same way.

If I do three dots and I find that another mapper in my area removes 
them, I'll talk to him and then he'll hopefully understand. If I map in 
an area where my dots are removed all the time, I'll probably start 
using a fixme. (Personally I think a fixme is too strong - it sounds 
like there is something "broken" that needs to be "fixed" whereas I 
simply want to point out that there's something there which has not yet 
been mapped. To me, the logical equivalent would be covering every 
unmapped place in "fixme"s.)

As I said, I am not religious about this particular "personal touch" 
that people may have in mapping. What I dislike is the basic idea of 
creating rules that everyone must follow (combined with "but what's the 
PROBLEM in following my rule?").

We must create rules only as a last resort; only where there is no other 
way but for everyone to do the same.

The real art is to identify the places where one must have rules, and 
leave anything else alone. Every extra rule makes OSM less good. That's 
my basic message - the "..." is just an example.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"