W dniu 03.09.2015 0:49, John Willis napisał(a):
Rant:
I agree that importance is very important. But not everyone agrees.
Some big issues at last - yummy! =}
I mentioned "importance" on the -carto github page (rendering mountain
icons based on a tagged "importance" score or something), and
gravitystorm informed me that it is unmappable because it is
unverifiable, linking to a "verifiable knowledge" page on the wiki.
That's the general attitude there. Andy (but not only he) cares more for
sure rules and clean visuals than for usability, especially at high zoom
levels. I'm contributing to osm-carto style for a few months now, but I
have a different attitude, so we disagree in many details. That's not to
say if it's "good" or "bad" in itself (the technical background is much
more usable because of Andy's work, for example!), it's just that we
care more for some things and less for the others.
It is verifiable. It just that it is not documented in a neat tidy way.
We can't even separate hills from mountains because they are all
"peaks" for some reason.
This was the whole story for me...
It started with trying micromapping small hills on some playgrounds and
parks. Then there was a heated debate in polish community about if we
should tag it at all - and how. I wanted to have some consistency, so I
was willing to extend "natural=peak":
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/peak#Proposal
but it didn't catch up, because there is no clear difference between
mountain, hill and knoll/hillock and it seems nobody liked my
proposition to just make a hint giving some sane numbers based on
Wikipedia definitions (100 m < hill < 300 m) and basically let people
decide.
OSM is stuffed full of value judgements - but the ones that could
improve renderings on tiny, large, and iconic non-manmade items the
most is not allowed.
It's sometimes just not visible enough, but a great example of using
judgment in OSM could be - mentioned already - definition of primary
road: "A major highway linking large towns", with "major" and "large"
not defined more clearly.
There are some existing tools, however - rendering in osm-carto uses
way_area sometimes, which means we can measure the area. There is also
code prepared for inclusion, which orders placenames by population (with
some hints like capitals being ranked higher):
https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1461
Both tools need to set the limit somewhere (what is big or small,
important or not), but it's based on some hard data.
Labeling Denali or the Grand Canyon or Mt Everest or other natural
landmarks *correctly* requires a value judgement by someone. Every
online map does this. Someone put the special "mt fuji" icon in Apple
Maps for a reason. Ot is an internationally famous peak.
I guess in these cases simply tourism=attraction (still judgment, but I
guess widely accepted) can be added and then used as a hint for renderer
to show it more prominently. It's perfectly doable within the current
framework, in my opinion.
I purchased a USA map that won a national mapping contest - this 1 guy
spent years choosing features to include and exclude - highest points,
POIs, and historic features - his map beat out NatGeo and other maps
in the contest. It is beautiful.
I think that's what should be expected, so I'm not surprised at all.
It's probably easier to make a hand-picked map in a fixed scale of one
country by one expert, than the rules for the automatically generated
map of the whole world in all available scales by a bunch of random
people with no clear and stable agenda and using constantly changing
data and unlimited data schemes... =P
Ignoring it seems to be the exact opposite of OSM's mission to capture
local knowledge to make a superior map.
Interesting point!
--
"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
