[OSM-talk] Fwd: Nav4All navigation shut down by Navteq

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Mon Feb 1 23:07:37 GMT 2010


Am 01.02.2010 22:48, schrieb Frederik Ramm:
> Hi,
>
> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> It's beginning to happen already.
>>
>> As OSM's data structures (principally "creative and unexpected uses of
>> relations")

ROFL ;-)

>> and tags become more complex, and as the project expands beyond
>> the initial audience of geeks, the editing tools are inevitably starting to
>> abstract away the nitty-gritty. In two years' time, most users won't know or
>> care what the cycleway tags are; they'll just click the cycleway icon(s) in
>> their editor and tick the appropriate options, and the editor will invisibly
>> sort the tags out.

Yes, like the presets in JOSM, and I guess this will continue. The 
current relation editing e.g. still has a *lot* of room for improvements.

> I don't think that will make the "we need fixed rules" fraction happy.
> We have renderers with fixed rules today - several of them - but that
> kind of fixed rules is not what they are looking for.

The problem is, that the renderers don't show enough of the variety the 
mappers want to map. Seems to me that tag discussions very often cool 
down once a map really is showing a specific feature - maybe except 
cycleways ;-)

> Ulf wrote:
>> Seems a lot of mappers would be quite happy to follow an at least more
>> fixed tagging scheme than what we currently have today.
>
> You make this sound as if this is about the freedom of the new mappers.
> But they are, even today, free to follow any ruleset, cheatsheet, or
> book that they want to use.

The problem is: There is no such thing, once you leave the warm and cozy 
world of presets and Map Features. If you enter the wonderful world of 
Wiki proposal pages, this becomes a jungle of inconsistent, disputed 
information.

This might be fun for the "initial audience of geeks", but today most 
mappers are pragmatic and just want to get this damn thing on the map :-)

I don't think of them as lazy idiots, but simply pragmatic in the way 
they spend their time. Not everyone want's to spend his/her whole life 
in the OSM universe.

> It's just that they don't get a guarantee
> that everyone else is using the same ruleset but that's ok - there might
> be rulesets much too complex for a newcomer, or the newcomer ruleset for
> rural Peru might be different from the one for urban Japan. Trying to
> make them all the same will needlessly reduce OSM's richness. These
> rulesets are unlikely to be devised by the same body; it would be too
> complex and the result would be less than optimal for everyone involved.

I'm not convinced that this is actually true.

> (In my OSM talks I like to show a communist-era poster about a five-year
> command economy plan. Command economy sounds like a good idea on paper
> but it turns out that the amount of planning required to get it to work
> is more than mankind can muster. The same, I think, is true for a
> world-wide OSM Ontology.)

There are lot's of possible solutions somewhere between a five year plan 
and the Wiki confusion of today ...

Regards, ULFL




More information about the talk mailing list