W dniu 15.05.2015 15:11, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a):
either one of the available tags fit for your purpose or you will have
to invent a new tag, that's how OSM works. The situation would be
Sure, I know! =}
However when you have only few fixed categories, it's much harder to
invent a proper one - coherent with the rest (also language-wise) and
not overlapping with other definitions. That can be less of a problem if
you have just a dozen of tags, but when there is more of them, lack of a
clear system will hit you more and more.
different for you if we had a common tag for any kind of higher
education, but it seems that other mappers have thought this approach
would be less useful for them (or we would already have this tag).
I don't think it's simply "if we don't have it, we don't need it,
because if we need it, we would have it already". =} You probably
underestimate the power of inertia and "good enough" system. In theory
we encourage "any tags you like" approach, while in practice we tend to
treat Wiki as the highest truth to deal with scattered cases and we
render only a small subset even of already "approved" tags.
Most casual users are afraid and don't know the system, so they will
just choose existing tags no matter what, and if there are no clear
guidelines/categories to create new tags AND they need to put a lot of
work (like writing the proposal, subscribing to the list, discussing,
then voting) AND there is no chance to see it work in the short time,
they will abstain or tag for existing tags or renderer.
There should be easier way of "creating" (defining and populating in our
ecosystem) new tag schemes within more useful category tree. It's more
reachable goal than trying to change casual users - exactly because they
are not involved too deep and most of them never will.
IMHO in general we have to deal with what is there, yes, we can try to
make some changes to make the system more consistent or complete, but
if you come and want to change everything there will naturally be some
reluctance. This is ever more true with established usage of a tag. If
Of course. But I think we well need to change it anyway and it's better
now than when we grow much more and the problem will get even bigger.
However real crisis may be exactly the point where any big change is
really possible - I can only make the community aware of it and start
discussion early enough to not make it too big.
you still want to try, please use a namespace/ keys that are not yet
in use, so to avoid conflicts with other mappers and to allow for
parallel tagging during "transition" (also look at the tags path and
public_transport which are examples for previous attempts to redesign
parts of the tagging scheme)
I see the area=* namespace as the most interesting and realistic
candidate, because it's really basic word/object, and while it may look
like a highly conflicting one (almost 700k uses already! -
http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/area), in reality it's underused,
because 99,39% of values are just yes/no and there's no need to touch
them. Other popular namespaces area:highway=* and area:size:ha=* are
just a different notation (area=highway + highway=*, the second one is
harder to translate, but not that important) and as I said: which
notation will prevail is a secondary problem.
So all the needed elements are there. What we need is just a mental
shift first (area=* may be a primary tag, not just an optional feature
of some objects), then documenting it, tagging and changes in tools
later. For me the biggest question is: are we ready for this and only
inertia is at play or maybe there are some valid objections or issues we
should think about before the change?
cheers
+1 =}
--
"The train is always on time / The trick is to be ready to put your bags
down" [A. Cohen]
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
