[OSM-talk] Undiscussed (?) edits removing lesser-used highway=* tags

[GerdP]

lsces wrote
> On 10/11/15 10:08, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>     One of the great strengths of OSM is that you can invent tagging on
>> the
>>     fly and trying to suppress that just so that the data consumers have
>> it
>>     easy, is misguided. In the end the main way our tagging evolves is be
>>     contributors trying to map stuff that doesn't have a popular tagging
>>     scheme associated and not allowing that will reduce new tagging to
>> that
>>     decided by a committee.
>> 
>> +1, very well put. I have in the past seen this more than once: invented
>> a new tag to try something out, someone else comes along (typically a
>> remote mapper with no knowledge whatsoever about the place) and tries to
>> "normalize" the new tag into something common (but not applicable). Even
>> fixing "typos" has to be done very carefully and hesitant, limited to
>> actual typos like "highway=residental" and not extending to assumed
>> synonyms.
> 
> Plus and minus on that ...
> Yes adding tags has to be flexible, but there are still a few areas that
> we need perhaps a tighter control, and adding highway types that do not
> then get displayed is probably one? As with the current discussion, key
> elements need a few ground rules, but that does not prevent additional
> data being added via extra tags. The rule about not tagging for renderer
> or router works both ways since one may need to add information that
> can't easily be accessed or simply does not exist on the base tagging?

Now that I what I would call very well put. There should be some kind
of staging in OSM, at least for a few tag keys. 
A simple example: oneway=*
When I first saw it I thought the only useful value is "yes".
Then I learned that no and  -1 are also often used.
So far so good.

Taginfo shows that we have 74 different tags.
A lot of them are simple errors, but some show special needs,
e.g. we have > 1000 oneway=reversible. 
Now what is meant with oneway=yes;no  (or no;yes) ?
Is that an error or did someone try to express the same
as others do with oneway=reversible or oneway=alternate
or oneway=alternating ?

Do we have to allow users to invent more oneway tags like
oneway=2, oneway="Marsh Lane" without telling him that
this is likely to be an error ? 
Will this be frustrating for any mapper?
I doubt that. 

Gerd



--
View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Undiscussed-edits-removing-lesser-used-highway-tags-tp5859298p5859612.html
Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com.