[OSM-talk] Tagging FOR the renderer

François Lacombe fl.infosreseaux at gmail.com
Mon May 18 21:46:58 UTC 2015


Such topics are curently discussed during the voting of a power tagging
proposal on the wiki.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_supports_refinement
Have a look to the voting section.

As I understand, renders is A (out of plenty) way to look at the data.
It sounds very restrictive to make the data look like just a few people
want to see it. What about ones who just want to produce data without
looking at it from a narrow window ?

The main argument opposed is often "oh wait, this would cause a rendering
issue". Thus, why the render can't adapt if the information is available in
the data ?

I totally agree with people who separate data from renders (structure from
styles). It can be very frustrating to often prevent a good structure from
existing because styles won't match.

OSM should look at this problem deeply and make strong choices, before
letting other sorts of contributors to leave the boat.


All the best

*François Lacombe*

fl dot infosreseaux At gmail dot com
www.infos-reseaux.com
@InfosReseaux <http://www.twitter.com/InfosReseaux>

2015-05-18 12:19 GMT+02:00 moltonel 3x Combo <moltonel at gmail.com>:

> On 18/05/2015, Daniel Koć <daniel at koć.pl> wrote:
> > I think the mission will be accomplished once we have it integrated with
> > OSM website somehow, just like we did with routing: there were already a
> > few routing services using our data, so we may not care, but for average
> > user they were just not here. And so is uMap.
>
> Routing is different in that it is immediately useful to
> *contributors*, who can now check that the OSM data is correct for
> routing, just like the slippymap is useful to check that the data
> looks good. uMap not so much : as a contributor, I'd rather use josm,
> taginfo, overpass, or even data dumps.
>
> As nice as it'd be, http://osm.org/ is not trying to be
> http://maps.google.com/. It's not trying to be the One True Map Portal
> that caters to every needs.
>
> Some reasons off the top of my head, some strong and some weak :
>  * The needs of contributors and users can easily conflict, and
> priority is/should be given to the contributors.
>  * Even without conflicts, the size of the contributor-focused todo
> list means that enduser-focused features get constantly pushed back.
> Help welcome.
>  * Becoming the internet's one-stop map website would require huge
> server ressources. Getting the kind of money required to run them
> would require huge changes to the way OSM is run, which'd be dangerous
> for OSM's freedom.
>  * Similarly for manpower requirements; volunteers wouldn't be enough
> anymore.
>  * A healthy ecosystem of commercial users is important for OSM. And
> they should be able to do a better job of serving the end-user, so
> it's probably a bad idea to compete with their use-case.
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20150518/6d74368d/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list