By forced rules: you mean a committee that decides what gets mapped and how ? So when I want to map something now, I have to file a request to the committee to start looking for a new tag. And if they like the request they come back within a few months with a proposal. And this committee is all-knowing, so they know all the exceptions in the different countries ? So I don't have to ask for an update when they misunderstood me ?
wrote this half-seriously, half-jokingly regards m On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Kotya Karapetyan <kotya.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > Now that the water_tap proposal discussion is over, I'd like to join > this important discussion. > > My opinion: Since OSM is a *map*, we should *map* things. That means, > we should tag what actually exists on the planet, not what is implied. > Sometimes things are tagged in real life. For example, motorways are > marked with special traffic signs, therefore we can tag a road as > motorway. In other cases, we should use common sense to call the > things by their names. I am usually asking myself: How would I explain > to a tourist how to find his way? I will use something like "Pass by > ..." or "You will see ...". This "..." is then the name (hence tag) to > be used. > > A good example of the contrary is amenity=drinking_water. Though the > original intention is clear, I believe the solution is suboptimal: a > tourist wouldn't know what to search for (since it is not drinking > water but rather its source that is actually visible in a given > place). A mapper may also have hard times identifying whether a > specific water source provides potable water or not. > > So, my answer would be we should map what the things *appear to be*. > Taking the example of Japanese roads, I would also add "with > reasonably common knowledge". It does leave some space for > uncertainty, but this uncertainty is also present in real life, so it > can appear in OSM as well. > > > Warin's question also identifies a problem I'd like to discuss. There > seem to be no "formal" agreements on how to create OSM. Things are > documented in the wiki, which is subject to uncontrolled changes and > no review and which is not always read by the mappers. Data is then > used by software development companies in the way they find > reasonable, without any foundation for consistency. It may be cultural > but I am looking for some sort of more robust, maybe even enforced, > agreements. They may be subject to changes, but their mere existence > would help. What do you think? > > > Cheers, > Kotya > > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 1:28 AM, Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote: > > This comes from the tap discussion but has implications elsewhere. > > > > What is the basic philosophy of OSM tagging at the top level? > > > > Are 'we' tagging for > > > > What things are? eg highways > > > > OR > > > > What things are used for? eg amenity > > > > ---------------------------- > > Explanation? By example; > > > > Highways are used for transport so would be better tagged as > > transport=motorway, sub tags for vehicles etc. > > > > OR > > > > amenity=drinking_water would be better tagged as water=blubber > > > > -------------------------- > > Is there an FAQ on this? Or has this never been documented/though of? > > Have fun with this :) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
