Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
On 2014-03-29 14:13, SomeoneElse wrote : On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote: As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. Not really - OSM doesn't have "official" tags. It has "commonly used" ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things, but a lack of interest in a "proposal" is a pretty good indicator that, er, no one is actually interested. If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then map it! If you think people are using different tags to express what is essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people to see if it is the same concept or if there are nuances that anyone is missing. Please don't expect people who have no knowledge of the real-world concept that you're trying to capture to be able to offer a useful opinion. Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars to forbidden places or through mud (1) or hikers on a 5 km useless detour, that makes people laugh at OSM users, that makes OSM taggers laugh at themselves and laugh at me when I say that routing is a prominent application of OSM. That disparages OSM as a whole. Different features have different degrees of importance. Mapping every details like trees and their species is adorning and less important. But mapping the features that tourists look for like Nounours wants to do or road hazards, especially to spare a child's life while looking for the features, like I want to do are important, and both are disregarded. I have tried to show that renting is akin to selling, that they fit in the same framework, that if you have car renting defined and you want to support boat renting too, you almost just add the word "boat" to the framework (like reusing an object in object oriented programming) and that this lessens the fuss of voting new propositions. No one seems interested. I also had rendering problems. In the same reasoning vein, I suggested to use object oriented like generic rendering (e.g. landuse=leisure) that would be used if no particular rendering exists (leisure:miniature_golf=yes). Such frameworks tend to have everybody think in the same direction. No interest. If you look at (random cases) associatedStreet relation or addr:country=*, some discussions will say that you should not use it and other discussions will say that you should, but the wiki is mute about that or almost. The reasoning about addr:country can be found under is_in=* which is an older alternative but none of them points to each other and it's not said that addr:country is better that is_in=* because it shows that the name is a country. In conclusion, half of the taggers will do it one way and half the other way. And as the discussions say that one of the ways is not supported by all data consumers, half of the tagging won't work for that consumer. What about everybody doing the same thing so that the consumer did the job only once, whichever way it is? Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the taggers will tag each their own way and data consumers will not understand it and it will have been tagged in vain. It is true that some cases are less strict than others but the problem is that many taggers have a tendency to make no difference and tag everything à la Picasso. Last but not least, I think we forgot to thank Nounours deeply for the work he does. Or tries to do. Cheers, André. (1) I had found (with Osmand too) and corrected several similar GPS routing tagging mistakes (there are many) and I was wondering why the same mistakes repeat over and over again. Then I found that the same mistake existed in my country's national wiki instructions!!! I put that right, but I was told off by someone standing himself as a chief and I was commanded to put the error back to the wiki because 1) no one would tag it that way (too complicated (3 tags)), 2) everybody knows that signal XXX means what I wanted to have the tags mean 3) there had been no discussion. A little bit of thinking leads to these conclusions: 2a: such tagging is not a matter of people but of programs understanding it, which I had corrected it for; 2b: if one sees tags, they don't say which road sign they describe, so that not even a human can interpret it rightly; 3: if a car is sent to where it shouldn't go by the tagging, replacing it with the tags that send it to the right way needs little discussion beyond "fine, thanks"; 1: if nobody will do it that
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
Well put André. +100. On 2014-03-30 22:25, André Pirard wrote: On 2014-03-29 14:13, SomeoneElse wrote : On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote: As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. Not really - OSM doesn't have official tags. It has commonly used ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things, but a lack of interest in a proposal is a pretty good indicator that, er, no one is actually interested. If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then map it! If you think people are using different tags to express what is essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people to see if it is the same concept or if there are nuances that anyone is missing. Please don't expect people who have no knowledge of the real-world concept that you're trying to capture to be able to offer a useful opinion. Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars to forbidden places or through mud (1) or hikers on a 5 km useless detour, that makes people laugh at OSM users, that makes OSM taggers laugh at themselves and laugh at me when I say that routing is a prominent application of OSM. That disparages OSM as a whole. Different features have different degrees of importance. Mapping every details like trees and their species is adorning and less important. But mapping the features that tourists look for like Nounours wants to do or road hazards, especially to spare a child's life while looking for the features, like I want to do are important, and both are disregarded. I have tried to show that renting is akin to selling, that they fit in the same framework, that if you have car renting defined and you want to support boat renting too, you almost just add the word boat to the framework (like reusing an object in object oriented programming) and that this lessens the fuss of voting new propositions. No one seems interested. I also had rendering problems. In the same reasoning vein, I suggested to use object oriented like generic rendering (e.g. landuse=leisure) that would be used if no particular rendering exists (leisure:miniature_golf=yes). Such frameworks tend to have everybody think in the same direction. No interest. If you look at (random cases) associatedStreet relation or addr:country=*, some discussions will say that you should not use it and other discussions will say that you should, but the wiki is mute about that or almost. The reasoning about addr:country can be found under is_in=* which is an older alternative but none of them points to each other and it's not said that addr:country is better that is_in=* because it shows that the name is a country. In conclusion, half of the taggers will do it one way and half the other way. And as the discussions say that one of the ways is not supported by all data consumers, half of the tagging won't work for that consumer. What about everybody doing the same thing so that the consumer did the job only once, whichever way it is? Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the taggers will tag each their own way and data consumers will not understand it and it will have been tagged in vain. It is true that some cases are less strict than others but the problem is that many taggers have a tendency to make no difference and tag everything à la Picasso. Last but not least, I think we forgot to thank Nounours deeply for the work he does. Or tries to do. Cheers, André. (1) I had found (with Osmand too) and corrected several similar GPS routing tagging mistakes (there are many) and I was wondering why the same mistakes repeat over and over again. Then I found that the same mistake existed in my country's national wiki instructions!!! I put that right, but I was told off by someone standing himself as a chief and I was commanded to put the error back to the wiki because 1) no one would tag it that way (too complicated (3 tags)), 2) everybody knows that signal XXX means what I wanted to have the tags mean 3) there had been no discussion. A little bit of thinking leads to these conclusions: 2a: such tagging is not a matter of people but of programs understanding it, which I had corrected it for; 2b: if one sees tags, they don't say which road sign they describe, so that not even a human can interpret it rightly; 3: if a car is sent to where it shouldn't go by the tagging, replacing it with the tags that send it to the right way needs little discussion beyond fine, thanks; 1: if nobody will do it that way and wiki instructions are to not do it that way and OSM is laughed at and even laughs at themselves, well, how should I say, there is a problem. ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging [1] Links: -- [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
@ Andre, Nounours, welcome to a project without goals. If you want to change the things you're writing about, then you're most welcome to join the Future Group http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Future Cheers, Johan 2014-03-30 22:25 GMT+02:00 André Pirard a.pirard.pa...@gmail.com: On 2014-03-29 14:13, SomeoneElse wrote : On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote: As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. Not really - OSM doesn't have official tags. It has commonly used ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things, but a lack of interest in a proposal is a pretty good indicator that, er, no one is actually interested. If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then map it! If you think people are using different tags to express what is essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people to see if it is the same concept or if there are nuances that anyone is missing. Please don't expect people who have no knowledge of the real-world concept that you're trying to capture to be able to offer a useful opinion. Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars to forbidden places or through mud (1) or hikers on a 5 km useless detour, that makes people laugh at OSM users, that makes OSM taggers laugh at themselves and laugh at me when I say that routing is a prominent application of OSM. That disparages OSM as a whole. Different features have different degrees of importance. Mapping every details like trees and their species is adorning and less important. But mapping the features that tourists look for like Nounours wants to do or road hazards, especially to spare a child's life while looking for the features, like I want to do are important, and both are disregarded. I have tried to show that renting is akin to selling, that they fit in the same framework, that if you have car renting defined and you want to support boat renting too, you almost just add the word boat to the framework (like reusing an object in object oriented programming) and that this lessens the fuss of voting new propositions. No one seems interested. I also had rendering problems. In the same reasoning vein, I suggested to use object oriented like generic rendering (e.g. landuse=leisure) that would be used if no particular rendering exists (leisure:miniature_golf=yes). Such frameworks tend to have everybody think in the same direction. No interest. If you look at (random cases) associatedStreet relation or addr:country=*, some discussions will say that you should not use it and other discussions will say that you should, but the wiki is mute about that or almost. The reasoning about addr:country can be found under is_in=* which is an older alternative but none of them points to each other and it's not said that addr:country is better that is_in=* because it shows that the name is a country. In conclusion, half of the taggers will do it one way and half the other way. And as the discussions say that one of the ways is not supported by all data consumers, half of the tagging won't work for that consumer. What about everybody doing the same thing so that the consumer did the job only once, whichever way it is? Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the taggers will tag each their own way and data consumers will not understand it and it will have been tagged in vain. It is true that some cases are less strict than others but the problem is that many taggers have a tendency to make no difference and tag everything à la Picasso. Last but not least, I think we forgot to thank Nounours deeply for the work he does. Or tries to do. Cheers, André. (1) I had found (with Osmand too) and corrected several similar GPS routing tagging mistakes (there are many) and I was wondering why the same mistakes repeat over and over again. Then I found that the same mistake existed in my country's national wiki instructions!!! I put that right, but I was told off by someone standing himself as a chief and I was commanded to put the error back to the wiki because 1) no one would tag it that way (too complicated (3 tags)), 2) everybody knows that signal XXX means what I wanted to have the tags mean 3) there had been no discussion. A little bit of thinking leads to these conclusions: 2a: such tagging is not a matter of people but of programs understanding it, which I had corrected it for; 2b: if one sees tags, they don't say which road sign they describe, so that not even a human can interpret it rightly; 3: if a car is sent to where it shouldn't go by the tagging, replacing it with the tags that send it to the right way needs little discussion beyond fine, thanks; 1: if nobody will do it that way and wiki instructions are to not do it that way and OSM is laughed at and even laughs at themselves, well, how should
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
Hi, On 30.03.2014 22:25, André Pirard wrote: Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars to forbidden places or through mud You are obviously trying to hijack this thread because some time ago you changed something on the wiki and someone else complained. You thought you were doing the right thing, you got a dressing down, and you haven't gotten over it to this day. You are obviously of the - mistaken - opinion that if we just had a wiki that would have clear and concise rules, everything else would automatically follow. Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the taggers will tag each their own way and data consumers will not understand it and it will have been tagged in vain. In most cases you'll find that one or two ways of tagging something cover 90 or 95 percent of cases. That's good enough for me... 3: if a car is sent to where it shouldn't go by the tagging, replacing it with the tags that send it to the right way needs little discussion beyond fine, thanks; I'd say this is true if you are talking about something widely accepted like oneway=yes. But if you talk about something more complex, where different interpretations are possible and you change tags so that things work in *your* routing engine, then that's the wrong approach - the tags must describe what is on the ground, and the routing engine must be adapted to work with that. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
Hey Guys Sorry, but I cannot follow your arguements as they are way to abstract. Would you please either speak in clear word (links) or discuss your private issue somewhere else. Thanks On 31.03.2014 00:25, Frederik Ramm wrote: On 30.03.2014 22:25, André Pirard wrote: Unfortunately, this is the kind of fuzziness that makes GPSes send cars to forbidden places or through mud You are obviously trying to hijack this thread because some time ago you changed something on the wiki and someone else complained. You thought you were doing the right thing, you got a dressing down, and you haven't gotten over it to this day. You are obviously of the - mistaken - opinion that if we just had a wiki that would have clear and concise rules, everything else would automatically follow. or hikers on a 5 km useless detour, that makes people laugh at OSM users, that makes OSM taggers laugh at themselves and laugh at me when I say that routing is a prominent application of OSM. That disparages OSM as a whole. Different features have different degrees of importance. Mapping every details like trees and their species is adorning and less important. But mapping the features that tourists look for like Nounours wants to do or road hazards, especially to spare a child's life while looking for the features, like I want to do are important, and both are disregarded. I have tried to show that renting is akin to selling, that they fit in the same framework, that if you have car renting defined and you want to support boat renting too, you almost just add the word boat to the framework (like reusing an object in object oriented programming) and that this lessens the fuss of voting new propositions. No one seems interested. I also had rendering problems. In the same reasoning vein, I suggested to use object oriented like generic rendering (e.g. landuse=leisure) that would be used if no particular rendering exists (leisure:miniature_golf=yes). Such frameworks tend to have everybody think in the same direction. No interest. If you look at (random cases) associatedStreet relation or addr:country=*, some discussions will say that you should not use it and other discussions will say that you should, but the wiki is mute about that or almost. The reasoning about addr:country can be found under is_in=* which is an older alternative but none of them points to each other and it's not said that addr:country is better that is_in=* because it shows that the name is a country. In conclusion, half of the taggers will do it one way and half the other way. And as the discussions say that one of the ways is not supported by all data consumers, half of the tagging won't work for that consumer. What about everybody doing the same thing so that the consumer did the job only once, whichever way it is? Yes, Nounours is right. If tagging is not precisely defined, the taggers will tag each their own way and data consumers will not understand it and it will have been tagged in vain. In most cases you'll find that one or two ways of tagging something cover 90 or 95 percent of cases. That's good enough for me... It is true that some cases are less strict than others but the problem is that many taggers have a tendency to make no difference and tag everything à la Picasso. (1) I had found (with Osmand too) and corrected several similar GPS routing tagging mistakes (there are many) and I was wondering why the same mistakes repeat over and over again. Then I found that the same mistake existed in my country's national wiki instructions!!! I put that right, but I was told off by someone standing himself as a chief and I was commanded to put the error back to the wiki because 1) no one would tag it that way (too complicated (3 tags)), 2) everybody knows that signal XXX means what I wanted to have the tags mean 3) there had been no discussion. A little bit of thinking leads to these conclusions: 2a: such tagging is not a matter of people but of programs understanding it, which I had corrected it for; 2b: if one sees tags, they don't say which road sign they describe, so that not even a human can interpret it rightly; 3: if a car is sent to where it shouldn't go by the tagging, replacing it with the tags that send it to the right way needs little discussion beyond fine, thanks; I'd say this is true if you are talking about something widely accepted like oneway=yes. But if you talk about something more complex, where different interpretations are possible and you change tags so that things work in *your* routing engine, then that's the wrong approach - the tags must describe what is on the ground, and the routing engine must be adapted to work with that. 1: if nobody will do it that way and wiki instructions are to not do it that way and OSM is laughed at and even laughs at themselves, well, how should I say, there is a problem. Cheers, André. Bye Frederik
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
On 29.03.2014 13:41, nounours77 wrote: Hey nounours77 + list As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. Therefore, I extend the voting period for the boat_sharing proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing The idea is to replicate the same structure for boats as for cars. To indicate where you can pick up a shared boat you reserved. I expect that service providers will mostly deliver this information, but we should agree on the format. Thanks for voting. I will discuss with you but I won`t vote as I think looking at the numbers within the data and at how many different users did use the tag tells much more than a vote for taking place for some weeks or month. Still proposal are important and the first step to a proper documentation. And well here we are where we have some lacks: To document is often a painful job, especially after a long discussion, and yourself will probably earn little. One nice thing about OSM is its openness. We do not have/want rules for everything but rather prefer that we all together actively develop a tagging system. This can/will lead to some duplicities and later changes but for me this is a fair game to first try out and use and once it gets uses and established make it official. All together we need to be flexible and maybe check for a few more tags with the advantage of freedom to choose and/or simply to try out. Cheers fly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
Hi everybody, As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. Therefore, I extend the voting period for the boat_sharing proposal: https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/boat_sharing The idea is to replicate the same structure for boats as for cars. To indicate where you can pick up a shared boat you reserved. I expect that service providers will mostly deliver this information, but we should agree on the format. Thanks for voting. Nounours77 ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting Extended - amenity=boat_sharing
On 29/03/2014 12:41, nounours77 wrote: As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. Not really - OSM doesn't have official tags. It has commonly used ones, and people agree not to use the same tag to mean different things, but a lack of interest in a proposal is a pretty good indicator that, er, no one is actually interested. If you think that something is important enough to be mapped, then map it! If you think people are using different tags to express what is essentially the same concept, discuss it with those people to see if it is the same concept or if there are nuances that anyone is missing. Please don't expect people who have no knowledge of the real-world concept that you're trying to capture to be able to offer a useful opinion. Re the comments in your parent message: Please, what is your vision of OSM? A or B? It's neither. It's a big pile of data, which contains things that everyone and no-one are interested, but which are _verifiable_. It's easy to combine that data with other data, both on the fly in an application or statically beforehand. Re OsmAnd, if you want an OsmAnd map to contain your tag, then simply make your own maps containing that tag: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OsmAnd#Create_your_own_maps (from the contents section at the top of the first page of the OsmAnd wiki) There are as many potential maps as mappers - please don't be discouraged that a majority of the extremely broad range of OSM mappers don't find some niche feature relevant, as that's true of almost all of the long tail of tags that differentiates OSM from top-down-mandated alternatives such as Google et al. Cheers, Andy ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
