2012/2/20 Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de>: > Hi. > Partly that's true: non-standard tags are kind of the hell for coders, who > have to implement lots of variants sometimes for similar information > retrieval. > But I vote for doing that > 1) only manually in the database, step by step. > or > 2) only to add redundant tags automatically, not to remove the "deprecated" > tags. Even that has to be done carefully and after a discussion, where the > majority of the discussing people agree to the new variant. I agree
> > There are very very very few tags, that have the same meaning. Often tag > meanings intersect, and two variants can express similar or even the same > issues, but on the other hand most often different meanings can occur in > combination with third tags. > If it is possible to create a bot that "fixes" this, why not provide the > part of a osmosis command chain to fix it in the preprocessing for > applications? If we can have "clean" and easy to use data compared to the need for complex pre-processing every time it should be used, I vote for clean. > > Yes: we have to get rid of "old" or "deprecated" tags, but OSM does not know > about "deprecation" - deprecated is, what's not in use anymore. > But as often: Use is the amount of work and the number of people knowing and > using a tag, not the first bot using or deleting a special tag. > > Therefore: > 1) try to use the tags as they are, even with software > 2) where it get's too cluttered, add your preferred tags redundant to the > objects, keeping the other tags - and discuss this with the community before > 3) speak with users, who add the "old" variant to convince them to use the > new variant instead > 4) speak to other software developers to support the new (and for editor > software "deprecate" the old) variant. > 5) Document it in the wiki: especially mention it in pages referring to the > old scheme. Again I agree > > Overall: be careful at forcing a new tagging scheme, where a different one > is in favour of the majority, and don't change documentation, as long as > that's the case. > > regards > Peter > > Am 20.02.2012 22:59, schrieb LM_1: > >> 2012/2/20 Chris Hill<o...@raggedred.net>: >> >>> Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine >>> detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to >>> speak >>> out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. >> >> I have to disagree. If the tag structure is not homogenised, it makes >> the data useless. Non-standard and/or undocumented tags are impossible >> to process in any reasonable way, even if they look perfectly complete >> and informative to human. >> The possibility of free tags is great, but once some tagging style >> proves as usable (and better than any other), it should become a >> standard and used exclusively (or be challenged by a better one >> later). >> Lukáš Matějka (LM_1) >> >> >> 2012/2/20 Chris Hill<o...@raggedred.net>: >>> >>> On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hill<o...@raggedred.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. >>>>> >>>>> There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people >>>>> are >>>>> free to use *any* tags they like. >>>> >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> Advertise your ideas and encourage acceptance. Show how well it works >>>>> any >>>> >>>> How would you know whether a tag had "acceptance"? Wouldn't >>>> documenting it somewhere make sense? Maybe...in a wiki? >>> >>> I did say document and discuss the OP. >>> >>>> What would you >>>> call "acceptance"? Would "approved" be a reasonable synonym for that? >>> >>> No. It implies some official status that leads people to remove other >>> tags, >>> sometimes with mass edits. >>> >>>> The wiki and (currently broken) approval mechanism is not some >>>> horrible bureaucracy that exists to ruin your life. It's there so we, >>>> as a community, can document the tags we use, and agree on how we use >>>> them. While it's ok to spontaneously invent a new tag and use it to >>>> solve your current problem, you can surely see the benefits of >>>> everyone eventually converging on the same tag? >>>> >>>> And if so, what would you do with all the old tags that people used >>>> before you converged? Wouldn't you "deprecate" them? >>> >>> No, some tags will wither away, fine. Some seemingly similar tags will >>> exist >>> side-by-side and that is fine too. Most importantly, distinctive >>> differences >>> can emerge too. >>> >>> Just think this through. Approval implies some sort of enforcement, >>> without >>> enforcement what is the point of approval? Just who would make this >>> enforcement happen and how? What would that do to an open project? If >>> only >>> approved tags are used then how would mappers map what they actually see? >>> Wait weeks for some committee to discuss, argue and approve or reject the >>> tag? If you are free to use any tag, what is an approval process for? >>> >>> If approval or 'acceptance' means a tag is rendered or used in a router >>> or >>> whatever then which tool do you mean? There are hundreds run by OSM and >>> other organisations, companies and individuals. >>> >>> Flattening the tag structure by homogenising tags is destroying the fine >>> detail, sometimes carefully crafted by mappers and I will continue to >>> speak >>> out against mass edits that attempt to do just that. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, Chris >>> user: chillly >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
