[OSM-talk] no rendering of amenity=veterinary

[Joseph Reeves]

Of course those are all good points and I support your veterinary
efforts; sorry, I think I could have come across badly during my rant.
I was arguing against the idea that we should only record (wiki
approved) features that are going to appear in Mapnik/Osmarender
tiles.

In truth, of course, this doesn't have anything to do with your
perfectly reasonable suggestion that veterinaries are displayed on
osm.org, but as with the best discussions, it went off topic pretty
quick.

Cheers, Joseph



2010/1/11 Daniel Neugebauer <mailinglists at energiequant.de>:
> Personally I wouldn't care that much about whether something I enter into the
> database is going to be rendered on the official tiles or not; it's there and
> someone may use it some day. There are more use cases for the data in OSM than
> just being rendered to the usual "road maps". But in my case, I think it would
> be nice to have vets displayed, especially since that's a propsed feature that
> has been approved with 100% of the votes (but maybe simply noone was
> interested in voting against it) and already had an icon attached to it. (only
> as PNG, not SVG, though)
>
> As I'm new to (editing) OSM I only made a few edits yet, but I already
> included some invisible metadata, not caring whether it's currently going to
> be shown to web users or not. I know that OSM is more than just the tiles but
> vets for instance seem to be worthwhile although maybe not all too
> conventional POIs to render.
>
> Plus, if there's a visible feature, users may think "oh, but they forgot one"
> and start entering more (because: "Wow, they include such places? Cool!").
> That won't happen if it's completely invisible. Also, if these POIs are
> outdated, people who know about it and could fix it maybe simply wouldn't see
> it, so these nodes remain in the database.
>
> Bye,
> Daniel
>