Hi all, Following useful comments received about the utility markers proposal, it has been reworked a bit.
Now marker=* is used to classify markers upon their shape and design, which allows to include already used marker=stone in it. marker=* is intended in the specific context of utility markers but can be used elsewhere if suitable. This change enable to get rid of support=* key as the design of the marker implies the support. It's now more convenient to use marker=* on another feature (marker=plate on power=pole for instance). utility=* key is introduced to give information of what is actually referred by the marker. More valuable than the colour (which is nevertheless optional), utility will be usable in many contexts and situations with a set of commonly adopted values and ability to define more local ones if required. For now I'm still in favour of deprecating pipeline=marker and don't encourage to use power=marker any more (I'm aware this require a significant effort As explained, markers aren't part of pipelines or cables and they should get their own key as to not clutter several keys with the same concept. Feel free to raise concerns on Talk page, all the best François Le dim. 8 sept. 2019 à 15:48, François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> a écrit : > Hi everyone > > Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 02:06, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> Because most mappers only add 1 tag to each new object. (Folks like >> you and me are an exception - and a year ago, when I was new at this, >> I only usually added 1 tag per feature). If an object can be described >> with one tag, it's better to do this and create several tags, (e.g. >> pipeline=marker, power=marker) rather than requiring each object to be >> tagged with 2 or 3 or 4 tags. This saves mapper time and makes sure >> that each object is fully described. >> > > I understand the need of simplicity in chosen terms. Neverthess I can't > imagine OSM with single-key objects as a principle. > +1 with Martin : if occasional mappers want to reduce their typing time, > they will use presets in convenient editors like iD or JOSM. > This argument comes on many discussions and oppose kind of simplicity to > semantic consistency. Tagging with several consistent tags could be more > easily handled and versatile than one single key mixing concepts for > reasons that are not necessarily shared by the whole community. > > However, this proposal will be reworked to take care of this batch of > comment, it's appreciable we can discuss these points here. > > Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 07:17, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@tutanota.com> > a écrit : > >> Is it typical to map "it is marker of an >> unknown kind" like splitting shop >> and opening hours makes sense? >> > > It makes sense to map "here is a marker what it looks like" without > explicitly attaching it to a utility. > One mapper will describe what she/he sees, and a second will complete with > her/his own knowledge. > > Le sam. 7 sept. 2019 à 16:11, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> > a écrit : > >> I would expect utility marker mapping to be a special interest. Jane >> Mapper will not map these, or will be so excited about her discovery on the >> ground that she will be willing to look it up on a wiki page ;-) >> > I definitely have to meet Jane Mapper, Martin :d > > > All the best > > François >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
