The previous responses are focusing on the benefit of adding explicit tags in situations where the current tagging is ambiguous.
Certainly there is a benefit of adding "oneway=no" on all two-way roads and "oneway=yes" on motorways to make the situation explicit. But the original question was about whether or not we should add "man_made=utility_pole" + "utility=power" to current power poles. These are currently tagged "power=pole" which is clearly defined as a power utility pole, so adding the two other tags does not provide any information. Does anyone think that it is a good idea to add those two new tags in this particular situation? -Joseph Eisenberg On Sun, Sep 20, 2020 at 9:46 AM François Lacombe <fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thank you all for replies > > Then the current proposal sounds to be ok regarding what is said upside. > I admit to automatically adding implied tags when importing data covered > by the proposal, so no apparent problem is mappers add them explicitly. > > All the best > > François > > Le jeu. 17 sept. 2020 à 15:11, Kevin Broderick <k...@kevinbroderick.com> a > écrit : > >> +1. >> >> Explicit tagging indicates a level of confidence not generally associated >> with implicit tagging. While there's certainly an 'ad nauseum' level of >> doing so (e.g. adding surface=paved, motor_vehicle=yes to highway=motorway >> in the U.S. would be kinda silly, IMO), there are plenty of cases where a >> primary tag generally implies something about the tagged object but doesn't >> guarantee it. I'd point to the recent discussion of access= on driveways as >> an example; while most driveways allow for certain types of access by >> default, it's far from guaranteed—there may be a no-trespassing sign or a >> locked gate, and explicitly indicating the lack of such in the access >> tagging is helpful. (Adding the implied value without survey or other >> definitive knowledge is not, as then you express a higher degree of >> confidence than actually exists in the data). >> >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 6:34 PM Paul Johnson <ba...@ursamundi.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 5:20 PM François Lacombe < >>> fl.infosrese...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Is that completely wrong or mappers could eventually add implied tags >>>> if they want to? >>>> The proposal currently states they are optional and it won't raise an >>>> error if mappers add them beside mandatory tags. >>>> >>> >>> No, it's not wrong to add implied tags explicitly. It's actually >>> encouraged in some cases where the implicit tag is not consumable by >>> automated system (such as the "none" default for turn:lanes tends to be >>> ambiguous between "you can't turn from this lane" and "you can't use this >>> lane" and "there's an implicit but unspecified implication that isn't >>> painted on the ground"), or access defaults (such as in the US where >>> bicycle=* and foot=* varies a lot on highway=motorway) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Tagging mailing list >>> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>> >> >> >> -- >> Kevin Broderick >> k...@kevinbroderick.com >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
