W dniu 28.05.2015 11:22, AYTOUN RALPH napisał(a):
And with this argument for a hierarchical approach we are back to the
start point of umbrella tags that cover all possibilities which is
landuse=educational as a polygon encompassing the whole area and the
whole range of educational facilities.
using landuse=school excludes universities, colleges, etc and you
would then need other tags landuse=university and landuse=college,
which then makes the landuse tagging specific instead of general.
We have also landuse/landcover dispute ("landuse=grass" should be rather
landcover=grass or landuse=meadow probably), so "landuse" is not really
general - I would see it as the object category "tree":
area
water
...
land
building
...
landuse
educational
kindergarten
school (- like "primary school")
higher/further education (- in Poland HE/FE classification is
not used or known, we have only "higher schools")
university
college
...
landcover
grass
sand
trees
...
We could simply extend the current system of compulsive categorization
with such schema, but I think we can do much better and avoid future
problems by taking this responsibility from the mappers and letting them
focus on the ground truth rather than requiring them to do some
philosophical work with categories.
We should care for ontology outside the tagging, because it belongs to
meta- level. Using Wikidata as a helper would be rich and established
source for qualifying and relations between objects and categories.
This would also give us more flexibility, because with compulsive
categories we're not sure if the mapper is sure that this is the right
category or is just following convention from Wiki. We could also expand
it much easier with new categories when needed.
If we look at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse [1] the
first sentence is correct "Mainly used for describe the PRIMARY USE of
land by humans."
But we may be not aware of the status. Forest is a great example - in
many cases we just see the trees and don't know if they are "used" or
not, but we're pushed to choose if it's natural=wood or landuse=forest,
because there is no established area/land=trees tagging. And what about
trees in the park - they're not a forest, but still we can say they're
"used" and taken care of by man.
I would prefer something really general, like for example:
area=trees/land=trees/landcover=trees
forest=mixed
school=primary/yes (if we don't know the type)
and let the category tree be curated in our Wikidata instance (or
anything we consider suitable for this task).
so the hierarchical approach should then be something like
landuse=agriculture... agriculture would then be sub categorised with
farmland (worked land for crops), orchard (trees planted for their
fruits), vineyard, pasture, etc.
landuse=residential (could be divided into urban and rural which have
totally different infrastructures)
landuse=commercial
landuse=industrial
landuse=educational
landuse=civic
landuse=transport
instead of the myriad of specifics that we now have like
landuse=peat_cutting and landuse=salt_pond....these are all sub
categories of the primary use of the land.
And the area of a driving school or a private higher school may be just:
area=driving_school
area=school + school=higher + owner=private
because it's at the same time commercial AND educational in many cases.
It's just a sketch (what about public commercial entities? and so on),
but the less compulsive categorization in tagging, the better.
--
"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
