And don't forget power=line vs power=cable :) :) :) :) :) http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Power_transmission_refinement#Underground.2FUnderwater_power_lines
*François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com 2013/9/16 Peter Wendorff <wendo...@uni-paderborn.de> > Hi, > let's tackle the "problems" you mention one by one: > > Am 16.09.2013 16:41, schrieb Matthijs Melissen: > > Dear all, > > [...] The lack > > of consensus does cause problems for the Openstreetmap community, though. > Most often it only cause problems for consumers of our data, not for the > mappers. Nevertheless you're right, it would be good to have clearly > defined rules in some cases. > > > Therefore, it would be good to have ideas or procedures on how to create > > consensus. > > > > There are currently quite a lot of OpenStreetMap features for which there > > is no consensus on how to tag them. Some examples (but I'm sure there are > > many more): > > - What is the difference between highway=footway and highway=path? > IMHO: > A footway is a footway, mainly or only dedicated to people using it by > foot. Any exception should be stated as such (e.g. bicycle=yes if bikes > are allowed). > A path is a path - which might be used by pedestrians/walkers, but not > only and not necessarily - you may guess what's allowed and what's not, > but you should not rely on anything without taking additional tags into > account. > > That's for you as a mapper. > For the data consumer that might be different: > - a path may be estimated to be accessible by foot if not stated > otherwise, because (!) there's not enough detailled data to be able to > rely only on existent data. > > > - What is the right scheme for tagging public transport? > (I'll skip this) > > - Is an unsurfaced residential road a track? > At first: unsurfaced? there's no surface? should be impossible because > if there's no surface then there's no road ;) > If you mean unpaved: it depends how you map it. > I personally would add a residential as highway=residential, independent > on the surface. In many development countries residentials are nearly > never paved, so that's only a guess (depending on the region) if not > stated otherwise. > > A residential therefore IMHO should be highway=residential, and if you > want or if you think it's useful as it's not what anyone would estimate > there, add surface=* to it, like surface=unpaved, surface=mud, > surface=sand or whatever matches. > > Again: On the consumer side a residential e.g. in most parts of Europe > would usually be guessed as being paved with paving_stones, asphalt or > concrete, but that's only an estimation again, so to make it clear, map it. > > > - Should we use shop=betting or shop=bookmaker? > > - Should we use shop=fishmonger or shop=seafood? > > - Should we use office=estate_agent or shop=estate_agent? > no idea - never used it. > > - Should we use shop=tailor or craft=tailor? > Depends... > Is there a tailor inside? or are they only selling what a tailor produces? > Is the shop directly connected to/containing the workshop? or is there a > shop selling the stuff and another place where it's crafted? > > The craft tag is there to get exactly that difference, I think. > A better example might be confectionary. > A shop=confectionary sells confectionary, but it does not necessarily > produce them, there does not need be someone making them - instead they > could by it. > A craft=confectionary on the other side may sell their own products - or > not. > That leads to three possible combinations, all valid and all telling > different things: > - shop=confectionary + craft=confectionary: selling and making > confectionary > - craft=confectionary: making confectionary, but not necessarily selling > them via a shop (they may sell them via internet, or only to other > shops, or they may sell it in their shop somewhere else) > - shop=confectionary: they buy their stuff somewhere and sell it to you. > > > The lack of consensus becomes clear by the fact that there are > > discrepancies between documentation on the wiki, the outcome of a voting, > > actual use (as documented on Taginfo, for example), and what editors and > > renderers support. > > > > The lack of consensus creates several problems. These problems include > the > > following. > > - Multiple parallel tagging schemes and unclear documentation creates > > confusion for newcomers. > That's true, but how do you want to tackle that without limiting the > freedom to invent new and better tags? > The multiplicity of parallel tagging schemes comes in where there's no > best variant - or where there's a lack of documentation. > Lack of documentation: go and document ;) > Confusion to newcomers: Explain it. Explain why there are several > possibilities, explain that they themself may invent own tags, and give > them taginfo and the wiki to search for reasons to use one or the other > variant. > > > - Users are often advised not to follow the documentation on the wiki, > and > > to look at Taginfo instead. This makes the wiki useless. It also leads to > > the fact that hardly anybody bothers to edit the wiki anymore. > True: Do you have any idea how to solve the problem of documentation not > reflected by practice or the other way around? > In general both has to be seen. A documentation in the wiki might be > outdated - then mappers should avoid following it, it might be missing, > and it might be plainly wrong. On the other side sometimes there is good > documentation but the documented features are very rare or the tagging > is new, so that there's not yet "current usage" you could find on taginfo. > Therefore both is necessary, and yes, it's not easy to see both and to > decide what to do, but how to solve it? > > If you would put the rule to follow documentation "only", what if Mapper > Max invents a new tagging scheme, documents that but nobody uses it, > because it's a bad idea? > If you would put the rule to follow actual usage, what if a group of > mappers get a really great new tagging scheme, documents it, but it's > not used yet? Nobody would (and could, following your rule) use that new > scheme as it IS not used yet. > > Both is necessary, and the connection between wiki and taginfo (taginfo > linking the documentation and the wiki showing stats from taginfo) is > one step to the right direction. > > The next step which has to be worked on continuously is to extend and > polish documentation in the wiki. > > regards > Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
