[OSM-talk] New OSM Quick-Fix service

[JB]

I disagree once more. You are mixing two problems which are completly 
different. The one you introduce being easier to agree with than the one 
previously at hand.
Layer=0, oneway=no have the same meaning as no information. It can be 
useful in some cases, as explained by Andy. Deleting them have no impact 
on data consumers. If you are able to parse the oneway=* tag, I 
seriously hope you check the value. Having 0/no as a value should not 
disturbe your software, or you are doing it wrong (a renderer used to 
render oneway=-1 the same as oneway=yes. I hope you agree it was the 
consumer's fault, not OSM's).
Deprecated tags, badly applied new tags is another problem, that should 
be discussed with the community if a mecanical edit is done.
JB.

Le 10/11/2017 à 08:18, Yuri Astrakhan a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 9, 2017 at 4:07 PM, ajt1047 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com> <ajt1047 at gmail.com 
> <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 09/11/2017 20:48, Yuri Astrakhan wrote:
>
>         JB, the "layer=0 removal" is one of the JOSM validations - it
>         automatically gets suggested to anyone editing an area with
>         that object, with the "fix" button autofixing it. JOSM doesn't
>         have a "mark this autofix as invalid" button, which means that
>         even if you don't autofix it, the next person reviewing the
>         same area may. This sounds identical to the issue raised by
>         Simon above:
>         > ...you don't actually "confirm" that something is a good
>         edit or not. You only have the choice of making an edit or
>         leaving it to others to do. ... This makes the whole thing
>         entirely equivalent to a mechanical edit.
>
>         So we should either A) remove it from JOSM, or B) define when
>         it should be kept vs deleted, because otherwise we are not
>         being consistent with requirements.
>
>
>     No, the two aren't equivalent.  In JOSM, validator suggestions are
>     made after you've been editing in the area.  Typically where
>     "default tags" such as "layer=0" (or "oneway=no" for that matter)
>     are used are in places where something's an exception (maybe this
>     is the only cross-town two-way street) , or there's more
>     information to be mapped (maybe there's something yet to be mapped
>     over or under the "layer=0" way that's obvious from the context of
>     the data in the area).
>
>
> Andy, "... obvious from the context of the data in the area" is the 
> exact problem.  It may be obvious to you, but another mapper who may 
> visit the same area might not be as experienced, and when they see a 
> suggestion from JOSM, it will be obvious to them to remove it. And if 
> not them, than the next person - making it equivalent to what Simon 
> was saying - eventually there will be a person who will overlook your 
> obvious context and who will heed to JOSM's advice. It's just a matter 
> of time.
>
>       All you're doing is blindly performing (or encouraging the
>     performance of) mechanical edits, where the mapper has no
>     knowledge of the local area.
>
> Incorrect, I am encouraging tagging experts, the same experts that 
> decide which tags should be used for what on the @tagging, to review 
> just that specific tag, case by case, and decide if the tag should be 
> fixed, or if a new rule should be made. Maybe the deprecation was a 
> mistake, and there are legit use cases?
>
>
>     Ask yourself "in what way does removing layer=0 from a bunch of
>     ways improve the quality of OpenStreetMap?". It certainly adds no
>     valid data.  It could potentially remove information (if there's a
>     problem with something else also tagged layer=0 nearby that will
>     be obvious to a user of an interactive editor from context).
>
>
> I strongly disagree, it greatly improves the quality of OSM, because 
> it simplifies the work that every data consumer has to do.  The 
> layer=0 is a tiny, perhaps less important subset of the big problem. 
> If I am a data consumer, I need to handle every case. and if something 
> can be stored in multiple ways, I need to handle all of them. And this 
> increases my workload.
>
> Fundamentally ,this is not about layer=0, but about all of the 
> deprecated tagging.  For example, natural=marsh → natural=wetland + 
> wetland=marsh -- this implies that every data processor has to know 
> both of these tagging schemas.  And there are hundreds of others, with 
> hundreds of thousands of cases.
>
> If I am a large organization, I have enough resources to handle each 
> case by my data team. So if OSM wants to cater to the deep pockets, 
> leaving all these deprecated tagging behind is fine. But if we want 
> individuals and small organizations to easily use the data without 
> much effort, the data must be as clean and straightforward as 
> possible. Otherwise every single data consumer has to redo the same 
> work, and handle every corner case, or it ends up ignoring or 
> mishandling many of them.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171110/ffb5bebc/attachment.html>