Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
Hi! 2013/4/11 François Lacombe > Data quality and consistency check world would definitely prefer to work > with relations than with spatial processing. > The important word here is "prefer". It is obvious that most data consumers prefer relations. They are (often) easier to process. But what the consumers process is the data that mappers provide. The consumers get that data for free. So why should the consumers be allowed to put additional burden on the mappers just to make their own life easier? Processing _is_ (often) harder without relations. That's a fact no-one denies. But we have to make a decision. Do we want data that is very easy to process but we get less of it because mappers often fail to provide it. Or do we want data that's a little harder to process but we get more of it. You can't have both - you have to make a decision. Just for the sake of completeness: I will never be a great "plant-mapper" so to me it might be completely irrelevant how they should be tagged. But I want this little baby (aka OSM) to become a big boy (or girl - see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare#Post-mortem) and in my opinion we will only achieve this if we keep the new mappers coming and don't frustrate them early on. I'm fully aware of the importance of data consumers. They do a great work and I definitively don't intend to make their life miserable. Actually the exact opposite: I want them to get as much data as possible. For free. That's why I'm sometimes a pain in the ass. And yes, I know that some people would argue about that "sometimes" ;-) All the best, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Power generation refinement: power plant model evolution
I am a mapper (my consumer side experience was very short so far) and I like relations. 1) All situations complex and simple can be mapped in the same way - this makes my mapping easier. 2) Single real object can have all the information on one place only, not on 50+ osm objects (eg. name of long streets). 3) Higher level, more abstract features can be handled more easily. 4) With appropriate editor (eg. JOSM with Relation Toolbox) it is no more difficult to learn than drawing a square. 10) Relations just make sense. Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) 2013/4/12 Martin Vonwald > Hi! > > 2013/4/11 François Lacombe > >> Data quality and consistency check world would definitely prefer to work >> with relations than with spatial processing. >> > > The important word here is "prefer". It is obvious that most data > consumers prefer relations. They are (often) easier to process. But what > the consumers process is the data that mappers provide. The consumers get > that data for free. So why should the consumers be allowed to put > additional burden on the mappers just to make their own life easier? > > Processing _is_ (often) harder without relations. That's a fact no-one > denies. But we have to make a decision. Do we want data that is very easy > to process but we get less of it because mappers often fail to provide it. > Or do we want data that's a little harder to process but we get more of it. > You can't have both - you have to make a decision. > > Just for the sake of completeness: I will never be a great "plant-mapper" > so to me it might be completely irrelevant how they should be tagged. But I > want this little baby (aka OSM) to become a big boy (or girl - see > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare#Post-mortem) > and in my opinion we will only achieve this if we keep the new mappers > coming and don't frustrate them early on. I'm fully aware of the importance > of data consumers. They do a great work and I definitively don't intend to > make their life miserable. Actually the exact opposite: I want them to get > as much data as possible. For free. That's why I'm sometimes a pain in the > ass. And yes, I know that some people would argue about that "sometimes" ;-) > > All the best, > Martin > > > > ___ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - More Consistency in Railway Tagging
Hi all, In an earlier thread I lamented that railways are tagged inconsistently throughout the world, and in some cases even within a certain area. I attribute this to a lack of definition in the railway tagging scheme. With that in mind, I've written up a proposal that attempts to: - Refine the basic railway=* tagging to have a more specific definition, taking inspiration from the tagging conventions around highway=* . - Adapt the "lanes" tagging scheme from highways to allow descriptions of individual tracks of a railway where railway mappers find that detail to be interesting. - Tackle in particular the (previously very under-defined) mechanism by which we can tag tram lines that run inside highways, which is close to my heart as a mapper in a city that has lots of them. Here's the proposal: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Railway_Schematic_Mapping I apologize for the length; I was trying to be thorough and avoid ambiguity. All constructive feedback is welcomed! Thanks, Martin ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
