> > Anyone suggesting widespread changes such as this needs to explain how > this proposal will help with at least one of the following: > > 1) Allowing new mappers to contribute to OSM easier than they > currently can > 2) Allowing some nuance to be captured that can't be captured now > 3) Make life easier for data consumers in some way > > and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary upheaval > (which in this case would be significant). Note that "satisfying the > data normalisation urges of people familiar with working with databases" > isn't on that list. > > Though also explained in the proposal, let me answer these:
1) New mappers often have trouble learning how to map landuse/natural/landcover. It is not always clear when to use the different tags and when not. However, assessing the physical landcover is much easier. You can say, this area is covered with grass, no matter the function of that area. And even experienced mappers like me sometimes struggle to find the correct tag why the physical landcover is clear. Therefore, the landcover tag will make mapping much easier for new mappers. 2) I personally often face that I can't properly access the function of a piece of land. Instead of possible incorrectly tagging with with e.g. a landuse tag, tagging it with landcover instead is much better because you can describe the physical coverage. Somebody with more knowledge can then maybe add the function of tag with another tag. 3.1) First of all, it makes rendering easier because the values are much better separated. For example, you no longer have a physical tag (landuse=grass/flowerbed) in the same key as a functional tag (e.g. landuse=residential). 3.2) The tagging system and thus the data is easier to understand for a data consumer. Now they have to learn all the strangeness of the current landuse/natural/landcover tagging system. So it is not just "satisfying the data normalisation urges of people familiar with working with databases". Using landcover will result in long term improvements for the tagging scheme. Even we now have to make some hard choices on some existing tags. Regards, Vincent 13 feb. 2023 14:10 van ajt1047_at_gmail_com_byf...@simplelogin.co: > > This email failed anti-phishing checks when it was received by SimpleLogin, > be careful with its content. More info on > anti-phishing measure > <https://simplelogin.io/docs/getting-started/anti-phishing/> > > > > By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution rates and > > be criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or established > > tagging. > > > An actual example would be really useful here. > > > > Establishment nor longstanding practices shouldn't be valid reasons on > > their own to justify decision making about tagging. > > > Indeed - if a proposal (even a reorganisation of existing usage) allows > better information to be collected then it makes sense to do it. The > "diplomatic" reorganisation was one such (though the implementation was > botched). In this case, I'm not convinced that this proposal has any > benefit. We have edge cases now; after this proposal we will still have > a whole bunch of slightly different edge cases. > > > > How about considering tagging as an independent valuable thing we > > should take care of as well? > > > Because it isn't? It's literally just describing how things are stored > within OSM. Anyone coming to OpenStreetMap as a mapper for the first > time won't see tags at all - their editor will look after that for them. > A data consumer will have a simplified view of the world and will have > to map OSM concepts into the ones that they are interested in. > > > As a concrete example, here: > > > https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L6003 > > > is where I take a bunch of things from OSM and map them into a concept > that is displayed on a map ("Variety Stores", shown with a "£" > symbol**). A map for a different platform, here: > > > https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/mkgmap_style_ajt/blob/master/transform_03.lua#L1760 > > > has a mapping onto a different category, "General Stores". This is > because this map is for Garmin devices which (by default) have a > hardcoded series of categories that the search menus know about, and > "Variety Stores" isn't one of them, but "General Stores" is. > > > Almost no-one in the outside world is going to want to distinguish > between the actual OSM values here; they're only interested in their own > real-world concepts. In many cases this may be much broader-brush, > perhaps "shops that sell food" vs "shows that primarily sell non-food", > or even just "shops". > > > Anyone suggesting widespread changes such as this needs to explain how > this proposal will help with at least one of the following: > > Allowing new mappers to contribute to OSM easier than they currently > can > Allowing some nuance to be captured that can't be captured now > Make life easier for data consumers in some way > > and the benefit needs to be proportional to the necessary upheaval > (which in this case would be significant). Note that "satisfying the > data normalisation urges of people familiar with working with databases" > isn't on that list. > > > Best Regards, > > > Andy > > > ** apologies to anyone with a pocketful of € instead of £ > > > > > On 13/02/2023 12:21, François Lacombe wrote: > >> Hello >> >> Le ven. 10 févr. 2023 à 19:29, Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging <>> >> tagging@openstreetmap.org>> > a écrit : >> >>> Or to be more specific solved problems, if any, are much >>> smaller than size >>> of change of longstanding tagging practices. >>> >> >> To me, it's a return of experience matter and a debate we should >> provide with facts. >> OSM has been created to question longstanding practices, how the >> same can be raised to prevent its own evolution nowadays? >> >> Many attempts to change longstanding practices in the past had >> unleashed contribution and bring more visibility on covered topics. >> I made a presentation at SOTM France last year about what benefits >> tagging development brings to OSM. >> Studying chronology tabs on taginfo learn us a lot about how the >> community reacts with such changing, despite changes may be slow or >> significant. >> >> The methodology and efforts deployed to achieve the rollout of new >> tagging should be adapted in regard of amounts of features to >> retag, yes (and we will never be perfect from that perspective). >> By the way, I saw some changes leading to x10 contribution rates >> and be criticized as disrupting longstanding practices or >> established tagging. >> Establishment nor longstanding practices shoudn't be valid reasons >> on their own to justify decision making about tagging. >> >> How about considering tagging as an independent valuable thing we >> should take care of as well? >> >> Best regards >> >> François >> >> _______________________________________________Tagging mailing list>> >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >>
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
