[OSM-talk] iD invents nosquare=yes for buildings which should not be squared
mikel.maron at gmail.com
Thu May 9 21:14:14 UTC 2019
> What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on www.openstreetmap.org?
Absolutely. My understanding is this feature will greatly improve data quality in OSM. I think it's fair to validate squareness of existing buildings. Appreciate the great work of the iD team.
Also commend your attention to tagging issues Michael. There's certainly a broader issue with how tags are managed in OSM. In short it's a mess all around and is in need of a rethink. I don't think this minor issue is a "hill to die on" however.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Thursday, May 9, 2019, 4:18:20 PM EDT, Michael Reichert <osm-ml at michreichert.de> wrote:
this could be seen as a tagging discussion but I think that it is a
discussion on governance and power. That's why this email goes to the
Talk mailing list.
Quincy Morgan, one of the maintainers of iD, invented a new tag called
nosquare=yes today which should be added to buildings which are not
square and should not be flagged by iD's validator. I (and later Paul
Norman) pointed out issues with the tag. I asked Quincy to discuss the
addition with the wider community beforehand.
Here are the issues I pointed out in the bugtracker. At the beginning he
planned to use square=no which he later changed to nosquare=yes but this
change does not make things better:
> Although noname=yes is common, it is not that common that it can serve as an argument in favour of introducing unsquare=yes. In difference to noexit=yes, unsquare=yes and noname=yes only serve as a workaround for quality assurance tools. noexit=yes also conveys information for map users: There road ends here.
> Some people prefer to tag as complete as possible and add oneway=no, cycleway=no, lit=no etc. to any way. However, such a practice is not base on a broad consensus and if you dig deep enough in the history of user blocks in OSM, you might find blocks set due to an excessive use of negative binary tags.
> I think that iD does not need this tag and should only validate buildings if they have been added or modified in the current session. If doing so, they will be reported once which does not bother that much.
> Adding such a tag is not a simple change as it might seem to be and I ask you to discuss it with the broader community on the Tagging mailing list.
What do you think? Should the next version of iD be deployed on
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
talk mailing list
talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk