On Sat, 9 May 2020 at 13:35, François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Tourists aren't supposed to refer to tags to know which kind of taxi > service they can use. > But the query tool is there. Or are you proposing banning tourists from using it? That would be possible - login required to use the query tool. Or login required to use the map. But the map is only primarily there for mappers, other uses are encouraged. And before the choir sings a chorus of "standard carto is for mappers, not users" and "different renderers may do things differently" they're right. Different renderers may also expose all the gory details of raw tags without prettying them up. Renders, tools, apps are here to ease this for them. Are you aware of > Google Maps data model when browsing it? > I'm aware of some of its limitations. Otherwise I wouldn't be here. :) Even local mappers can use tools focused on a specific topic which makes > tagging less important to master to contribute. > A lot of things can be hidden by renderers and editor presets. But the query tool is still there. As is overpass turbo. And there are a lot of things I need to add as raw tags because the editor I use most has decided that things I add frequently to certain types of POI aren't things that anybody wants to add. It makes life easier for newbies who may not be interested in nuances but it makes life harder for experienced mappers who do. It is even harder when I have to keep looking things up in the documentation because the tagging isn't very meaningful. Unless there are good reasons not to for specific cases, we should strive to make the semantics of tags meaningful. It would be possible to have tags like K9842=V2179 provided ALL renderer query tools, editors, overpass turboi, etc. did the appropriate translations. It would be a real pain when you needed to add a raw tag, but it would be feasible. But we'd never get all tools to do the translations, so making things meaningful is necessary. We just can't agree on what is meaningful because we're have different mental models. > > Nevertheless, we're are discussing about things like amenity=taxi + > vehicle=* which doesn't sound that complex. > Nope, it doesn't sound that complex. Yet the discussion goes on and on, because some people dislike amenity=taxi + vehicle=* and prefer amenity=*. Even common language using two words "motorcycle" and "taxi" could mean we > have something to do with several keys. > It could mean that if everyone had the same mental model you do. We're not all strict taxonomists. Or even strict taxi-ists. As somebody else pointed out, if vehicles with a driver for hire are all taxis, then why do we have buses? Very few people class taxi and bus identically. And even fewer put chartered aircraft in the same class. Many see ojeks and taxis the same way they see buses and taxis - different things, not variants of the same thing. In everyday life, most people don't think in a taxonomic way. They see instances, not classes. Push them to categorize things and they will agree that a chair is a type of seat, and a seat is a type of furniture, but most of them see a chair and think "chair." And if you do persuade somebody to think taxonomically, the hierarchy he or she uses may or may not be the same one you do: that chair is made of wood, as is that table - they're both wooden. not they're both furniture. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
