Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 3 August 2010 05:51, SomeoneElse wrote: > We've seen recently how people responding to disasters have used OSM data on > handheld devices - someone right now could quite possibly be using such a > map to try and deal with, say, the floods in Pakistan. If that map is > suddenly missing hospitals what are they to do? Similar hacks to what they did in Haiti I suspect, use what ever tags render, like camping sites, which are really refugee camps... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Ross Scanlon wrote: Total time 6 minutes Hundreds of hours, yeah right. So you've also updated every user of mkgmap who uses a customised style file too? That should add a few to the "20 or so" (or whatever number were mentioned before). Each change is of the same order as the one that you've described above, but when multiplied by the number of users affected it's much, much greater. The worst of it is there was no warning - none of the stuff here seems to have been followed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct We've seen recently how people responding to disasters have used OSM data on handheld devices - someone right now could quite possibly be using such a map to try and deal with, say, the floods in Pakistan. If that map is suddenly missing hospitals what are they to do? Cheers, Andy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
No one seems to have mentioned that any OSM API update could potentially break "thousands" of applications yet we still update it if needed. For example, the change to API 0.5 broke every tool, renderer or app that still assumed segments exist. (Then again, for this example, it was easier to change stuff then because the ecosystem was still small leaving a smaller collateral damage.) So, while I agree that unilateral changing of keys/tags is not the way to go, I don't agree with the idea that we don't change key/tag definitions simply because it could break stuff. I guess the right way to do things is to discuss key/tag changes where the discussion is roughly proportional to the "maturity" of the key/tag. For example, I wish that we had started with road=* instead of highway=*. But since highway is such a basic and established key that is probably is as old as OSM itself, it will take almost universal agreement to effect a change to the highway key name. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > 2010/8/1 Ulf Lamping : > > Am 01.08.2010 16:40, schrieb Ross Scanlon: > >> > >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:08:10 +0200 > >> Ulf Lamping wrote: > >> > >>> Am 31.07.2010 14:00, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: > > 2010/7/31 Ulf Lamping: > >>> > >>> Please remember, that it's not done to change only the software (e.g. > >>> mkgmap), but each rule file or alike in use. > >>> > I know all costs, > >>> > >>> I have doubts about that. > >> > >> And most of them use mapnik and/or osm2pgslso there's no change for them > >> but to load a newer version of mapnik and > > > > osm2pgsql. > > > > That's only true for map developers that keep the default rendering rules > of > > the software in use. Once a developer starts to tweak the rendering to > his > > liking, he usually has to copy the rules file(s) and therefore won't > > directly benefit from upstream changes of the software. > > > > BTW: Most mobile device software (Garmin, mobile phone, ...) don't use > > mapnik/osm2pgsql. > > But they have have to sync with base sooner or later to follow > changes, or no? I think you overplay individuality of developers. It > would be quite stupid not to follow changes in upstream. > > Anyway, I understand your point, but I think there is some middle > ground where tags can be changed and it can be done reasonably. > > Have a nice working week, > Cheers, > Peter. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
2010/8/1 Ulf Lamping : > Am 01.08.2010 16:40, schrieb Ross Scanlon: >> >> On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:08:10 +0200 >> Ulf Lamping wrote: >> >>> Am 31.07.2010 14:00, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: 2010/7/31 Ulf Lamping: >>> >>> Please remember, that it's not done to change only the software (e.g. >>> mkgmap), but each rule file or alike in use. >>> I know all costs, >>> >>> I have doubts about that. >> >> And most of them use mapnik and/or osm2pgslso there's no change for them >> but to load a newer version of mapnik and > > osm2pgsql. > > That's only true for map developers that keep the default rendering rules of > the software in use. Once a developer starts to tweak the rendering to his > liking, he usually has to copy the rules file(s) and therefore won't > directly benefit from upstream changes of the software. > > BTW: Most mobile device software (Garmin, mobile phone, ...) don't use > mapnik/osm2pgsql. But they have have to sync with base sooner or later to follow changes, or no? I think you overplay individuality of developers. It would be quite stupid not to follow changes in upstream. Anyway, I understand your point, but I think there is some middle ground where tags can be changed and it can be done reasonably. Have a nice working week, Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Am 01.08.2010 16:40, schrieb Ross Scanlon: On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:08:10 +0200 Ulf Lamping wrote: Am 31.07.2010 14:00, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: 2010/7/31 Ulf Lamping: Please remember, that it's not done to change only the software (e.g. mkgmap), but each rule file or alike in use. I know all costs, I have doubts about that. And most of them use mapnik and/or osm2pgslso there's no change for them but to load a newer version of mapnik and osm2pgsql. That's only true for map developers that keep the default rendering rules of the software in use. Once a developer starts to tweak the rendering to his liking, he usually has to copy the rules file(s) and therefore won't directly benefit from upstream changes of the software. BTW: Most mobile device software (Garmin, mobile phone, ...) don't use mapnik/osm2pgsql. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 2 August 2010 00:47, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > Ok, maybe I'm wrong (that's why I won't even try to change things > without consensus), but return to root of all this - do you agree that > we keep amenity=fire_hydrant and do nothing about it or we try to > introduce emergency=* at least for such new things? So far it is not > very popular tag and isn't even rendered. Ummm if it isn't rendered, apart from JOSM preset, is there any other software that will even need changing? I realise some people may have customised their style sheets, but the majority will use the defaults and tweak things for their custom usage. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
2010/8/1 Ulf Lamping : ... >> I know all costs, > > I have doubts about that. > Ok, maybe I'm wrong (that's why I won't even try to change things without consensus), but return to root of all this - do you agree that we keep amenity=fire_hydrant and do nothing about it or we try to introduce emergency=* at least for such new things? So far it is not very popular tag and isn't even rendered. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 16:08:10 +0200 Ulf Lamping wrote: > Am 31.07.2010 14:00, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: > > 2010/7/31 Ulf Lamping: > > >> 4) Change it in every map renderer / router / other software that is out > >> there - hundreds (or already even thousands?) of applications > > > > Really hunderds and thousands? I think it is more in tens ballpark, 20 > > at the best. And most of them developed actively by OSM community > > which follows news from it. > > See: > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Software/Mobile_phones > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services > > ... and those lists are only the tip of the iceberg. > > Please remember, that it's not done to change only the software (e.g. > mkgmap), but each rule file or alike in use. > > > I know all costs, > > I have doubts about that. > > Regards, ULFL And most of them use mapnik and/or osm2pgsl so there's no change for them but to load a newer version of mapnik and osm2pgsql. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Am 31.07.2010 14:00, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: 2010/7/31 Ulf Lamping: 4) Change it in every map renderer / router / other software that is out there - hundreds (or already even thousands?) of applications Really hunderds and thousands? I think it is more in tens ballpark, 20 at the best. And most of them developed actively by OSM community which follows news from it. See: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/OSM_Map_On_Garmin/Download http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Software/Mobile_phones http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/List_of_OSM_based_Services ... and those lists are only the tip of the iceberg. Please remember, that it's not done to change only the software (e.g. mkgmap), but each rule file or alike in use. I know all costs, I have doubts about that. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Cartinus wrote: > And "nobody" puts > all Key: and Tag: pages in his wiki watchlist. Use one of the feeds (eg RSS) and it is easy. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 31 July 2010 22:47, Ross Scanlon wrote: > Sounds sensible to me, I'm busy tracing new nearmap imagery. With extremely useful changeset comments? :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
> Work out why it doesn't appear (5 min - your patch is actually very > slightly wrong btw, can you spot your mistake?) Spotted my friday afternoon coding did you. Glad to see someones on the ball!! > However the above is just for fun - lets replace my original statement > with 'a lot of time' and move on... Sounds sensible to me, I'm busy tracing new nearmap imagery. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Saturday 31 July 2010 14:00:40 Peteris Krisjanis wrote: > > Teaching each and every mapper out there that the tag has changed and > > they should no longer use the old one (not every mapper uses presets). > > And they never never never read wiki, or follow OSM news? Actually if this thread was not pushed onto talk most people wouldn't have noticed this change at all until stuff didn't work anymore. Most people don't have the time to follow all the mammoth threads on tagging. And "nobody" puts all Key: and Tag: pages in his wiki watchlist. -- m.v.g., Cartinus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
2010/7/31 Ulf Lamping : > Am 31.07.2010 11:19, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: >> >> If that can be solved introducing meaningful new name spaces like >> emergency, which could give easy way to filter emergency items, why >> not? What is cost of this? >> >> 1) Changing it in wiki - one day tops >> 2) Changing it in db - mass convertation, doable in one shot >> 3) Add presets to JOSM - also one day tops > > 4) Change it in every map renderer / router / other software that is out > there - hundreds (or already even thousands?) of applications Really hunderds and thousands? I think it is more in tens ballpark, 20 at the best. And most of them developed actively by OSM community which follows news from it. > Teaching each and every mapper out there that the tag has changed and they > should no longer use the old one (not every mapper uses presets). And they never never never read wiki, or follow OSM news? > Confused mappers that feels unsafe how to map something, as the tags > "changes all the time" - a feeling, not necessarily a fact. In fact, mappers are *already* confused, because there is no one that strongly says - we do so - and everyone follows. It is strange that lot of old OSMers really don't dig what feelings community have against current tagging scheme. > If you think about the costs and benefits of something, you should know > *all* costs first. I know all costs, and biggest cost for tag incosistency is end of the project, because it drives new contrubitons away and make older contributors sooner or later throw the towel. Sometimes biggest cost comes from doing nothing, trying to believe that everything must stay the same. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Ross Scanlon wrote: > Total time 6 minutes > Hundreds of hours, yeah right. What you have given is an absolute minimum time for someone who already understands to actually edit the files. You've skipped research, testing and deployment. > The program I've been talking about uses osm2pgsql and mapnik so I'm well > aware of them. > If your smart you could probably add the emergency data without having to > totally rerun osm2pgsql. Smart takes time to think about / time to code. You don't seem to have included any time for it in your 6 minutes. Also as you say you are well aware of osm2pgsql and mapnik, you might even say expert. So your 6 minutes is the time for an expert to make the changes - most people are not experts. Let me give you an alternate time-line at the other end of the scale: Receive and read bug report that map symbol for police no longer appears (2 min) Research why it no longer appears (20 minutes of reading wiki and mailing lists) Research on how to add emergency to the database (20 more minutes of reading the wiki) Deicide on process to fix bug (10 minute meeting between developer and server admin) Produce patch to fix issue (we'll go with your 6 min) Re-import database - this person doesn't understand osm well enough to do something 'clever' (20 min monitoring over a few days) Test (2 min) Work out why it doesn't appear (5 min - your patch is actually very slightly wrong btw, can you spot your mistake?) Test (2 min) Deploy to live server (another 20 min monitoring) Retest (2 min) Close bug (2 min) Total time: as near to 2 hours as makes no difference. Let's say the average is an hour - I think it's fair some people will do it in 10 minutes, some will will spend 2 hours trying to work out what to change and another hour on IRC asking for help! Let's say there are 100 people using mapnik / osm in the world - I'm sure it's more than that :) 1 * 100 = 100 hours just on mapnik. However the above is just for fun - lets replace my original statement with 'a lot of time' and move on... -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Am 31.07.2010 11:19, schrieb Peteris Krisjanis: If that can be solved introducing meaningful new name spaces like emergency, which could give easy way to filter emergency items, why not? What is cost of this? 1) Changing it in wiki - one day tops 2) Changing it in db - mass convertation, doable in one shot 3) Add presets to JOSM - also one day tops 4) Change it in every map renderer / router / other software that is out there - hundreds (or already even thousands?) of applications Teaching each and every mapper out there that the tag has changed and they should no longer use the old one (not every mapper uses presets). Confused mappers that feels unsafe how to map something, as the tags "changes all the time" - a feeling, not necessarily a fact. ... If you think about the costs and benefits of something, you should know *all* costs first. Regards, ULFL ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
2010/7/31 Kevin Peat : > Both the police and ambulance service spend a lot of their time on > non-emergency items as do hospitals, doctors, etc. If you want to write an > app that lists the police under an "emergencies" menu/button then go ahead > but you don't need to change the OSM data to do it. I think it must be reminded that disscussion started when amenity=water_hydrant didn't sound so obvious... I think problem is not that we need or we want emergency=*, weather=*, whatever=*, but that amenity is overcrowded - period. If that can be solved introducing meaningful new name spaces like emergency, which could give easy way to filter emergency items, why not? What is cost of this? 1) Changing it in wiki - one day tops 2) Changing it in db - mass convertation, doable in one shot 3) Add presets to JOSM - also one day tops I think you over analyze situation too much. Change selected group of tags which makes sense (we have already discussed about it), finialised it for now, and inform about this change osm-talk. And do it. Mappers will catch on. Cheers, Peter. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Both the police and ambulance service spend a lot of their time on non-emergency items as do hospitals, doctors, etc. If you want to write an app that lists the police under an "emergencies" menu/button then go ahead but you don't need to change the OSM data to do it. Kevin On 30 July 2010 23:14, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > From my point of view the tags make perfect sense, if I have an emergency > and I need police, fire or ambulance assistance then I'll look for emergency > rather than amenity. > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
> Ross Scanlon wrote: > > > Then show why and where they don't make sense rather than carrying on about > > possible broken apps. > > Easy: > > amenity=hospital emergency=yes > > when replaced with emergency=hospital results in lost data. > > Jon If you read the full thread then emergency=hospital is not included, so it would still be amenity=hospital emergency=yes. It was agreed that hospital should not be included in about the third email to the thread. We're only talking about fire, police and ambulance. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Ross Scanlon wrote: Then show why and where they don't make sense rather than carrying on about possible broken apps. Easy: amenity=hospital emergency=yes when replaced with emergency=hospital results in lost data. Jon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:05:19 +0100 Emilie Laffray wrote: > On 30 July 2010 16:26, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > > > > Total time 6 minutes > > > > Hundreds of hours, yeah right. > > > > The program I've been talking about uses osm2pgsql and mapnik so I'm well > > aware of them. > > > > If your smart you could probably add the emergency data without having to > > totally rerun osm2pgsql. > I think you are missing the point that Brian was making. If the data has to > change dramatically, it means one or two man weeks to do the change at work > for our engine at work. The change in itself is simple, but that means > testing if none were missing, that everything is running fine, regenerating > a database earlier than expected which in itself takes a significant amount > of time. Testing is something quite important and we have tons of test to > make sure that the database is working as expected before we release to > production. I'm well aware of this, but if your app is robust then the changes should not be that much of an issue and the testing should only be minor. The garbage point Brian was making is exactly that garbage. If you make statements like it'll be hundreds of developer hours to modify apps then you need to be able to back it up with facts. Why would you have to regenerate the database earlier than expected? If you regenerate the database on a regular basis then it could wait for the next routine regeneration. It does not have to be done immediately, that was the point of initially duplicating the tags and then after a sufficient time then remove the duplicated amenity tags. > However, I don't like those tags, as they don't really make sense in many > cases. Before rushing, we should really evaluate a bit more if they make > sense. Then show why and where they don't make sense rather than carrying on about possible broken apps. >From my point of view the tags make perfect sense, if I have an emergency and >I need police, fire or ambulance assistance then I'll look for emergency >rather than amenity. I've shown how quickly the two apps described by Brian can be updated quickly, it does not take much more effort than that. -- Ross Scanlon ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Ross Scanlon wrote: > > [emergency] = 'police_station' > > What does a police station have to do with emergencies? Are you going to > tag the UN headquarters next because they run international disaster > relief? > > Bye > Frederik Well here, it's in the portfolio of the Emergency Services Minister, so in New South Wales, Australia, its culturally correct. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 31 July 2010 04:17, Richard Weait wrote: > You are contradicting yourself, John Smith. You replaced > amenity=ambulance_station with your emergency=ambulance_station. This > is unnecessary and inappropriate without wide community support. Since no one bothered to document this I have no idea what the other tag was for, people keep attacking me over my "lack of documentation" well where is the documentation for this tag? > Could you have _added_ emergency=ambulance_station without deleting > amenity=ambulance_station ? Yes, you could have. But you did not. as pointed out before, amenity=Ambulance and amentiy=ambulance and amenity=Ambulance_station, but you seem to have neglected to mention those, in any case there was only about 100 in total, so it was not widely used, and it didn't even have a JOSM preset. > Fire stations and ambulance stations are often co-located here. So you have. According to Chris it may have implied multiple things, but since no one bothered to document it I'm not exactly sure what it meant at all. > Also, show me your fire station change set so we can confirm this? It > should be easy to find it via your change set comments? Except, of > course, ... Since I didn't change them there is no changeset, so no amount of commenting is going to help with an missing changeset. > Especially the way you misuse them. Hundreds of "Fixed stuff" change > set comments. Hundreds. I would have said it was closer to thousands... > So to summarize, you deleted amenity=ambulance_station . You did so > without previously ensuring that the tools that expect > amenity=ambulance_station would instead deal with > emergency=ambulance_station. Which tools exactly? > So you removed data that users, and tools expect and replaced it with > data that users and tools do not expect. Again, which tools specifically used one of the 4 above ambulance tags... > Now how should the OSM community evaluate the quality of your work? > Obviously, if you had done nothing at all, the users, data base and > tools would be better off. More expected data in more places. So > John Smith scores badly on this test. So we are better off with 4 ambulance tags, none of which were documented to explain what they were for? > Look! The vandal test provides results indistinguishable from your > edits John Smith! And you aren't providing any proof anything has broken, just hand wavy examples that something somewhere might have broken. > My question stands. How is the community to distinguish your actions > from that of a vandal? The intentions usually, but of course intentions are always hard to prove, at least in my case I'm trying to work through the issues some of my edits may have caused, but others seem intollerant and inflexible to changes to try and improve the data for both end users of the data and people creating it in the first place. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 31 July 2010 02:03, Richard Weait wrote: >> John Smith, your method stinks. > > What stinks specifically, you even seem to agree in your next paragraph. > >> You seem to believe that your preferred tag of emergency=fire_station, >> etc is better. Rather than adding your preferred tags and allowing the >> community to eventually realize that you are correct, you have >> _replaced_ many of these tags with your preferred tag. I'm not agreeing with you John Smith, I'm pointing out that you failed to get community support at least in part because you failed to allow time to gain community support if any was due. > I haven't replaced anything, apart cleaning up amenity=ambulance, > amenity=Ambulance, amenity=ambulance_station and > amenity=Ambulance_station -> emergency=ambulance_station, of which > there was only 100 or so tagged. You are contradicting yourself, John Smith. You replaced amenity=ambulance_station with your emergency=ambulance_station. This is unnecessary and inappropriate without wide community support. Let's look at just two. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/387787095/history http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/270936829/history Did you or did you not delete amenity=ambulance_station and add emergency=ambulance_station ? You did. Could you have _added_ emergency=ambulance_station without deleting amenity=ambulance_station ? Yes, you could have. But you did not. > Which I haven't touched. Fire stations and ambulance stations are often co-located here. So you have. Also, show me your fire station change set so we can confirm this? It should be easy to find it via your change set comments? Except, of course, ... >> Your disdain for clueful change set comments appears to be nothing >> more than obfuscation. > > I don't seem to be the only one in this boat that finds changeset > comments less than useful [ ... ] Especially the way you misuse them. Hundreds of "Fixed stuff" change set comments. Hundreds. So to summarize, you deleted amenity=ambulance_station . You did so without previously ensuring that the tools that expect amenity=ambulance_station would instead deal with emergency=ambulance_station. So you removed data that users, and tools expect and replaced it with data that users and tools do not expect. Now how should the OSM community evaluate the quality of your work? Obviously, if you had done nothing at all, the users, data base and tools would be better off. More expected data in more places. So John Smith scores badly on this test. What if you had only added emergency=ambulance_station, and not deleted amenity=ambulance_station? The users, data base and tools would have been no worse off, but for a slight increase in duplication. This would have been the no harm - no foul method, but you chose not to proceed this way. What if, instead, a malicious vandal had done the same edits? That vandal, might have chosen to delete amenity=ambulance_station, just as you did, then add a completely obvious vandalism tag like vandalism=fixed_stuff As a result the vandal would have broken the expectations of users, removed expected data from the data base and caused existing tools to fail. Look! The vandal test provides results indistinguishable from your edits John Smith! >> How is the OpenStreetMap community to distinguish these edits from >> vandalism, and you from a vandal? > > Considering I didn't make any of the changes you are accusing me of I > fail to see the problem. You did. See above. My question stands. How is the community to distinguish your actions from that of a vandal? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 31 July 2010 03:48, Frederik Ramm wrote: > One of my points in the other discussion what that writing proper changeset > comments also means showing respect to the rest of the community. Showing > respect, interacting with humans, is something that no piece of software can > do for you. So everyone involved with OSM has perfect communication skills then? People can't make mistakes? > You have spent a lot of time preparing and executing this change, but even > so you were unable or unwilling to even spend a minute to think of a > suitable changeset comment. The very least thing to say would be "yes, > sorry, I've made a mistake". Also, you have completely ignored the widely > accepted community rules for making automated changes - were they unknown to > you, or did you somehow think they would not apply to your plan? And I've since reverted most of those changes and started this thread instead. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 31 July 2010 02:03, Richard Weait wrote: > John Smith, your method stinks. What stinks specifically, you even seem to agree in your next paragraph. > You seem to believe that your preferred tag of emergency=fire_station, > etc is better. Rather than adding your preferred tags and allowing the > community to eventually realize that you are correct, you have > _replaced_ many of these tags with your preferred tag. I haven't replaced anything, apart cleaning up amenity=ambulance, amenity=Ambulance, amenity=ambulance_station and amenity=Ambulance_station -> emergency=ambulance_station, of which there was only 100 or so tagged. > OSMDoc says there were ~25,000 amenity=fire_station last November. > http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/amenity/#values Which I haven't touched... at all, so before accusing someone of something at least see if they actually did what they've been accused of, I'm proposing a change and was asking for comments. > Your disdain for clueful change set comments appears to be nothing > more than obfuscation. I don't seem to be the only one in this boat that finds changeset comments less than useful to describe disparate changes, or prevent misleading ones, which have occurred in the past by accident, why can't there be better tools to summarise or model changes, why can't I see a before and after image of the map based on what changed, why must it all come down to 1 or 2 lines of comment that may or may not actually reflect the changes made? > How is the OpenStreetMap community to distinguish these edits from > vandalism, and you from a vandal? Considering I didn't make any of the changes you are accusing me of I fail to see the problem. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 31 July 2010 02:05, Emilie Laffray wrote: > While I follow this mailing list, I am pretty sure that many people working > in the OSM ecosystem is not following the change that fast. It means that What change, I have made a suggestion and was after comments, so far some are for this specific change, and some are against, most of those against don't seem to comment on the specific proposal. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:25 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 31 July 2010 02:05, Emilie Laffray wrote: > > While I follow this mailing list, I am pretty sure that many people > working > > in the OSM ecosystem is not following the change that fast. It means that > > What change, I have made a suggestion and was after comments, so far > some are for this specific change, and some are against, most of those > against don't seem to comment on the specific proposal. > > It appears that you have indeed made lots of changes in the database before discussing on the list: e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/771625043/history ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 31 July 2010 03:34, Ian Dees wrote: > It appears that you have indeed made lots of changes in the database before > discussing on the list: > e.g. http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/node/771625043/history Hmmm thought I fixed that by reverting that changeset... I'll fix it now thanks for pointing out my oversight. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
John Smith wrote: On 31 July 2010 02:05, Emilie Laffray wrote: While I follow this mailing list, I am pretty sure that many people working in the OSM ecosystem is not following the change that fast. It means that What change, I have made a suggestion and was after comments, so far some are for this specific change, and some are against, most of those against don't seem to comment on the specific proposal. _ Here's an example of a change you claim you haven't made: http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/5342181 This includes private or charity stations which are not emergency stations. Global changes like this without discussion can only be regarded as vandalism. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 31 July 2010 03:43, Chris Hill wrote: > Here's an example of a change you claim you haven't made: No, I claimed to have made those, as I pointed out to you in a previous reply, what exactly was so important about these locations that no one could be bothered to spend 2 seconds making a wiki page for? What did the tag actually mean, people seem to care so much about the what and why of changeset comments, but not documenting the what and why of tags? double standards? > This includes private or charity stations which are not emergency stations. Again, they were documented so how was anyone supposed to know that or differentiated between the ones that are? > Global changes like this without discussion can only be regarded as > vandalism. What is poor and no documentation then? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
John, John Smith wrote: why can't there be better tools to summarise or model changes One of my points in the other discussion what that writing proper changeset comments also means showing respect to the rest of the community. Showing respect, interacting with humans, is something that no piece of software can do for you. You have spent a lot of time preparing and executing this change, but even so you were unable or unwilling to even spend a minute to think of a suitable changeset comment. The very least thing to say would be "yes, sorry, I've made a mistake". Also, you have completely ignored the widely accepted community rules for making automated changes - were they unknown to you, or did you somehow think they would not apply to your plan? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 12:30 PM, John Smith wrote: > > > How is the OpenStreetMap community to distinguish these edits from > > vandalism, and you from a vandal? > > Considering I didn't make any of the changes you are accusing me of I > fail to see the problem. > > You did... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30/07/2010 17:14, Ian Dees wrote: The OSM ecosystem has always strongly favored ease of mapping (as opposed to ease of data consumption), but now that more data consumers are attempting to use our data maybe it's time to start thinking about how we can firm things up a little bit to give the data consumers something solid to work with. http://www.frankieandshadow.com/sotm10/tagcentral.pdf As well as telling people and programs about new tagging, this can also tell people that one tagging is sufficiently similar to another you could use the same tag for it, and similarly that it deprecates or is deprecated by some other tag. A schema aware application would, in principle, need no change were a tagging change like this to be made. Not that I think that's a good reason to do it. The main reason that has been cited for this change is that you can fall back on a generic icon when the more specific one is not found. Things can fall in lots of partitions of data though, this just focuses on one (and one over which there is little agreement here apparently, not that there ever is agreement on anything here). Also, using tag => icon or even a simple rule based method is a very blinkered way of seeing even rendering, and renderers aren't the only consumers by any means. It assumes you always want a renderer which always wants to draw every item in every class that you have an icon for. Real world mapping isn't like that (which was the subject of my other SOTM talk, http://www.frankieandshadow.com/sotm10/real-map-real-paper-real-people-real-money.pdf ) The main reason not to make this change is that currently it forces every bit of producer and consumer software everywhere to change. And as someone else said, even the smallest change leads to expensive consequences in And you have to be aware of the change. At the moment a lot of our software is introspective, stuff that the community makes and supports. But as it spreads, less and less will be like this, and making gratuitous changes to support a minor convenience of one rendering method just isn't sustainable. If you are worried about simplifying renderering, there's hugely more complex problems that changing or enhancing the data model would give vastly more benefit from: understanding how parts of a dual carriageway link together for example, of knowing what constitutes a street in a less heuristic fashion than just contiguous similar names; knowing what makes a bridge (as a parallel discussion was talking about) and so on. Someone facetiously said "why not make everything thing=whatever?". Had I designed it that's how I'd have done it: properties of items would have a type (e.g. hospital) and then attributes with valuies to further qualify, i.e. tags. It's also how relation tagging works (within the constraints of tags having to have a LHS): relations have type=... and then further qualifying tags. If we'd done it that way, then among other benefits we'd have less of this endless quibbling about the vocabulary of what are, essentially, internal identifiers. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 17:14, Ian Dees wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Emilie Laffray > wrote: > >> >> While I follow this mailing list, I am pretty sure that many people >> working in the OSM ecosystem is not following the change that fast. It means >> that every one doing an app needs to do some significant work to make sure >> that those new settings are taken into consideration. In the meantime, you >> have effectively broken many applications, which is something which is very >> bad. > > > Not that I agree with the tags or the way that OP went about the change > (I've already reverted the majority of his changes in my area), but the fact > that your applications break when someone changes a tag is a sign that > something larger is wrong with the system than a simple amenity/emergency > tag change. > > The OSM ecosystem has always strongly favored ease of mapping (as opposed > to ease of data consumption), but now that more data consumers are > attempting to use our data maybe it's time to start thinking about how we > can firm things up a little bit to give the data consumers something solid > to work with. > That was my point. We have legacy tags which for better or worse are working right now. This particular change doesn't look good as you are breaking functionalities. Firming up doesn't mean that we suddenly have to change all tags around. As for the issue about data consumers, I believe to be partially a wrong argument; I am myself a corporate user and my main beef was not the taggging system but rather the wiki initially. I ended up using tagwatch to get a better idea of what was used. We have been using OSM for now quite some time and I am still regularly adding new tags. Amusingly enough, I suspect that most people look at tools like tagwatch to know what to map in the end or examples they found somewhere on the map, or presets from editors. The fact is firming up doesn't mean changing drastically everything under the pretense it is not consistent. Any change should be progressive, whether we like it or not. I don't really care the current organization as the system tends to stabilize towards one tag which is usually community based (country based). Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Emilie Laffray wrote: > > While I follow this mailing list, I am pretty sure that many people > working in the OSM ecosystem is not following the change that fast. It means > that every one doing an app needs to do some significant work to make sure > that those new settings are taken into consideration. In the meantime, you > have effectively broken many applications, which is something which is very > bad. Not that I agree with the tags or the way that OP went about the change (I've already reverted the majority of his changes in my area), but the fact that your applications break when someone changes a tag is a sign that something larger is wrong with the system than a simple amenity/emergency tag change. The OSM ecosystem has always strongly favored ease of mapping (as opposed to ease of data consumption), but now that more data consumers are attempting to use our data maybe it's time to start thinking about how we can firm things up a little bit to give the data consumers something solid to work with. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 16:26, Ross Scanlon wrote: > > Total time 6 minutes > > Hundreds of hours, yeah right. > > The program I've been talking about uses osm2pgsql and mapnik so I'm well > aware of them. > > If your smart you could probably add the emergency data without having to > totally rerun osm2pgsql. > I think you are missing the point that Brian was making. If the data has to change dramatically, it means one or two man weeks to do the change at work for our engine at work. The change in itself is simple, but that means testing if none were missing, that everything is running fine, regenerating a database earlier than expected which in itself takes a significant amount of time. Testing is something quite important and we have tons of test to make sure that the database is working as expected before we release to production. While I follow this mailing list, I am pretty sure that many people working in the OSM ecosystem is not following the change that fast. It means that every one doing an app needs to do some significant work to make sure that those new settings are taken into consideration. In the meantime, you have effectively broken many applications, which is something which is very bad. That would go against any kind of rationalisation that you want to do since you would break things quite a bit. It is not the image that we want to be showing to the world. Ultimately, IF it was the right solution, John solution of using double tags might be a solution to lessen the impact. However, I don't like those tags, as they don't really make sense in many cases. Before rushing, we should really evaluate a bit more if they make sense. Emilie Laffray ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 8:40 AM, John Smith wrote: > Just to drag things back on topic, so far most claims seem to be vague > and generalised, however the original proposal about shifting police > and fire into an emergency category doesn't seem to have many/any of > the draw backs of most POIs most people are going to search for most > of the time. John Smith, your method stinks. You seem to believe that your preferred tag of emergency=fire_station, etc is better. Rather than adding your preferred tags and allowing the community to eventually realize that you are correct, you have _replaced_ many of these tags with your preferred tag. OSMDoc says there were ~25,000 amenity=fire_station last November. http://osmdoc.com/en/tag/amenity/#values You have failed to follow the automated edits code of conduct guidelines on almost every count. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Automated_Edits/Code_of_Conduct Your disdain for clueful change set comments appears to be nothing more than obfuscation. How is the OpenStreetMap community to distinguish these edits from vandalism, and you from a vandal? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Where the same thing is being tagged in different ways then by all means spend your energy trying to unify them as that ulitmately benefits all data consumers and reduces scope for mapper confusion. In the case of hospital or fire_station though I don't see the point of these changes. In these cases the "amenity" conveys no meaning, it is the "hospital" that does that. If you change it to "emergency" (or whatever) that still conveys no meaning in itself so what is the point? Kevin On 30 July 2010 13:40, John Smith wrote: > Just to drag things back on topic, so far most claims seem to be vague > and generalised, however the original proposal about shifting police > and fire into an emergency category doesn't seem to have many/any of > the draw backs of most POIs most people are going to search for most > of the time. > > Suppose things did move forward initially with dual tagging with a 3, > 6 or even 12 month time frame, most databases would need to be > reimported in that time frame because vacuuming seems to take as long > or longer than reimporting. > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Hi, Ross Scanlon wrote: [emergency] = 'police_station' What does a police station have to do with emergencies? Are you going to tag the UN headquarters next because they run international disaster relief? Bye Frederik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
> Well done. Pretty much none of the others do. I look forward to your > patches :) Heres the patch for the default.style for osm2pgsql node,way emergency text nocache,polygon Wasn't worth a diff patch as it's only one line. (30 seconds) > Mapnik for instance has manual rules - they will need to be changed. > Worse than that osm2pgsql (the import tool) only imports certain keys > so implementing emergency=* requires a complete reimport of the > database - about 30 hours even on very good hardware. Then the > changes need to be tested and deployed. I can get to 3 or 4 hours of > actual developed work without even trying. Probably should have used a diff patch but anyway heres a new file for mapnik rules in inc/ dir (5 minutes most of which was spent getting a copy of mapnik from svn) Could be called layer-emergency-points.xml.inc ---&maxscale_zoom17; [emergency]='ambulance_station' &maxscale_zoom17; [emergency]='police_station' &maxscale_zoom17; points (select way,amenity,shop,tourism,highway,man_made,access,religion,waterway,lock,historic,emergency from &prefix;_point where emergency is not null or shop is not null or tourism in ('alpine_hut','camp_site','caravan_site','guest_house','hostel','hotel','museum','viewpoint') or highway in ('bus_stop','traffic_signals','ford') or man_made in ('mast','water_tower') or historic='memorial' or waterway='lock' or lock='yes' ) as points &datasource-settings; points (select way,amenity,shop,tourism,highway,man_made,access,religion,waterway,lock,historic,emergency from &prefix;_polygon where emergency is not null or shop is not null or tourism in ('alpine_hut','camp_site','caravan_site','guest_house','hostel','hotel','museum','viewpoint') or highway in ('bus_stop','traffic_signals') or man_made in ('mast','water_tower') or historic='memorial' ) as points &datasource-settings; And now the osm.xml file (30 seconds) [amenity] = 'police' &maxscale_zoom17; [amenity] = 'fire_station' &maxscale_zoom17; replaced by [emergency] = 'police_station' &maxscale_zoom17; [emercency] = 'fire_station' &maxscale_zoom17; Total time 6 minutes Hundreds of hours, yeah right. The program I've been talking about uses osm2pgsql and mapnik so I'm well aware of them. If your smart you could probably add the emergency data without having to totally rerun osm2pgsql. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk[emergency]='fire_station'
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
Just to drag things back on topic, so far most claims seem to be vague and generalised, however the original proposal about shifting police and fire into an emergency category doesn't seem to have many/any of the draw backs of most POIs most people are going to search for most of the time. Suppose things did move forward initially with dual tagging with a 3, 6 or even 12 month time frame, most databases would need to be reimported in that time frame because vacuuming seems to take as long or longer than reimporting. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
I thought most smart phone apps would mostly view map tiles, either OSM or Cloudmade? There are several apps now for the iPhone which also search POIs. Some examples: -JOSM allows tagging whether banks include an ATM - I select this when the ATM is attached to the building or inside the lobby.None of the apps I tried show these ATMs in a search for "ATMs". - A search for ATMs shows a list of "ATM" in the search result - that's literal because the search is showing name= , which doesn't exist because JOSM only accepts operator= when tagging ATMs. Therefore as an end user, you don't even have a brand name to look for. Although that seems to indicate it's a good idea to categorise things a little better, so that the apps or what ever don't need to know or care about everything in the category, as is the case with the amenity=* tags. In the end, any good data consumer needs to get 'down and dirty' into the wiki and OSM tags to be effective. Just the restaurant category is awkward - most people looking to eat just want an option to see all eating establishments within walking distance. Because tagging is so subjective, there needs to be an option to combine amenity=restaurant amenity=fast_food amenity=café , any of which could also serve food while excluding all other amentity= . I don't see any value in creating a category of eatery= just to make the query simpler. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:42 AM, Ross Scanlon wrote: >> Better yet - just don't change it. This sort of change just isn't >> worth the pain and hundreds of developer hours that could be better >> spent on moving the project forward. Yes - this sort of change might >> make the tag heirachy prettier - but not enough to justify the work. > > Garbage. > > It's not hundred of hours of developer work to change this. > > If the renderer programming is up to scratch then it should be able to > automatically accept changes like this. > > One of the programs I have done some development on has this built in. Well done. Pretty much none of the others do. I look forward to your patches :) Mapnik for instance has manual rules - they will need to be changed. Worse than that osm2pgsql (the import tool) only imports certain keys so implementing emergency=* requires a complete reimport of the database - about 30 hours even on very good hardware. Then the changes need to be tested and deployed. I can get to 3 or 4 hours of actual developed work without even trying. Now times that by the number of applications. For applications that are deployed to the desktop or mobiles the situation is even worse - it might not be possible to release a new version of the time being, the change might have to wait for the next update cycle and then all the users have to actually get round to updating. Or maybe they have to code in some sort of hack to change the new tag back to the old tag for compatibility. And what about multi-lingual support? A lot of apps are in multiple languages, they might well need to go back to their translators and check that the new tagging doesn't result in a subtle change in meaning. But all this is the tip of the iceberg - you are missing the time it takes to monitor the tagging list (most developers will not even be on it), to find out which changes are important and to work out if things are exactly equivalent or if there is a change of meaning. I think hundreds was a fairly reasonable number. -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 21:15, Mike N. wrote: > Every Smartphone OSM data consumer I've looked at has been unusable because > of tagging interpretation. Compared to OSM, data consumers seem to be very > inflexible and unaware of any but the most rigid tag schemes that haven't > changed in the past year. In other words, about 30% of mapping labor goes > to waste because it's impossible for consumers to keep up. I thought most smart phone apps would mostly view map tiles, either OSM or Cloudmade? Although that seems to indicate it's a good idea to categorise things a little better, so that the apps or what ever don't need to know or care about everything in the category, as is the case with the amenity=* tags. For example, a generic dollar sign icon could be used for unknown shop=* tags, and maybe a desk or something similar for office=* and so on ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere "break every editor/renderer/search/data user" whether or not you think it is correct? John has just as much right to go change all the amenity= tags to something more specific as you do to keep them the same. Data consumers of all kinds need to accept both kinds of changes. Every Smartphone OSM data consumer I've looked at has been unusable because of tagging interpretation. Compared to OSM, data consumers seem to be very inflexible and unaware of any but the most rigid tag schemes that haven't changed in the past year. In other words, about 30% of mapping labor goes to waste because it's impossible for consumers to keep up. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 17:06:14 +1000 John Smith wrote: > On 30 July 2010 16:51, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > > Provided the program is maintained. People may use programs not > > maintained any more or they may be not able to upgrade or they wouldn't > > know they need to upgrade. Things will just stop working for them, > > without a notice. > > Is this an objection to the current proposal, or in general? > > If this is a comment in general then this isn't sufficient argument > because tags change all the time, so the other side of the argument > would be they wouldn't see new things render ever, which would make > them more inclined to switch to an application that does show things > they are interested in. Ditto. The particular app that I'm talking about had this from the start. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 16:51, Jacek Konieczny wrote: > Provided the program is maintained. People may use programs not > maintained any more or they may be not able to upgrade or they wouldn't > know they need to upgrade. Things will just stop working for them, > without a notice. Is this an objection to the current proposal, or in general? If this is a comment in general then this isn't sufficient argument because tags change all the time, so the other side of the argument would be they wouldn't see new things render ever, which would make them more inclined to switch to an application that does show things they are interested in. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:42:50AM +1000, Ross Scanlon wrote: > The renderer does not require any change, the only changes required > are moving the amenity=police icon to be the emergency=police_station > icon (which is a 30 second job) and creating an appropriate emergency > parent icon (and there's probably something already there we can use). > > The program code to do this is approximately 100 lines of c including > white space and comments. Provided the program is maintained. People may use programs not maintained any more or they may be not able to upgrade or they wouldn't know they need to upgrade. Things will just stop working for them, without a notice. Greets, Jacek ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
> Better yet - just don't change it. This sort of change just isn't > worth the pain and hundreds of developer hours that could be better > spent on moving the project forward. Yes - this sort of change might > make the tag heirachy prettier - but not enough to justify the work. Garbage. It's not hundred of hours of developer work to change this. If the renderer programming is up to scratch then it should be able to automatically accept changes like this. One of the programs I have done some development on has this built in. In the case of amenity=police. The program scans the icon directory for all icons on start up. Before rendering it then checks to see if it has a matching icon to amenity=police. If it does then it renders that icon, if not then it renders the parent icon, ie amenity. If it's changed to emergency=police_station The renderer does not require any change, the only changes required are moving the amenity=police icon to be the emergency=police_station icon (which is a 30 second job) and creating an appropriate emergency parent icon (and there's probably something already there we can use). The program code to do this is approximately 100 lines of c including white space and comments. -- Cheers Ross ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 04:54, Toby Murray wrote: > If there IS a change for medical stuff, I would personally rather see > the medical=* proposal be used. At this stage it'd be nice to sort out the emergency=* issue before trying to tackle anything else :) I agree with Chris that it probably isn't a good idea to stick hospital under emergency=* since not all hospitals have an ER... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
If there IS a change for medical stuff, I would personally rather see the medical=* proposal be used. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Medical Hospitals could be medical=hospital and emergency=yes/no to take care of the "is this an emergency hospital" concern. Then I guess a question would be would pharmacies be medical=pharmacy or remain shop=pharmacy? Toby On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:12 PM, John Smith wrote: > On 30 July 2010 04:09, Ian Dees wrote: >> I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere "break >> every editor/renderer/search/data user" whether or not you think it is >> correct? > > It's slightly amusing how it comes up every now and then about what to > do about depreciating tags to make the data more consistent/useful, > except when someone tries to do something about it then it's a bad > idea :) > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Ian Dees wrote: > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Brian Quinion > wrote: >> >> >> Discussing this for a day on the Tagging list is not enough for you to >> >> make >> >> this change. >> > >> > How much time should it take? I didn't really set a dead line but was >> > trying to get comments on the idea... >> >> A change that breaks every editor / renderer / search & data user ? > > I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere "break > every editor/renderer/search/data user" whether or not you think it is > correct? > John has just as much right to go change all the amenity= tags to something > more specific as you do to keep them the same. Data consumers of all kinds > need to accept both kinds of changes. No. Adding a new type tag just doesn't work yet. Replacing an existing tag takes something that worked and stops is working (hence breaks). Changing tags in a sensible way is hard - which is why it happens so rarely. There is no way that OSM can be taken seriously as a data source if we just randomly switch tags without giving data users adequate time to respond. As to John's edits being equally valid. Also no - that like saying that my deleting every park or retagging every park 'fish=yes' is equally valid. Some edits make the data better - some make it worse. -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 04:09, Ian Dees wrote: > I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere "break > every editor/renderer/search/data user" whether or not you think it is > correct? It's slightly amusing how it comes up every now and then about what to do about depreciating tags to make the data more consistent/useful, except when someone tries to do something about it then it's a bad idea :) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Brian Quinion < openstreet...@brian.quinion.co.uk> wrote: > >> Discussing this for a day on the Tagging list is not enough for you to > make > >> this change. > > > > How much time should it take? I didn't really set a dead line but was > > trying to get comments on the idea... > > A change that breaks every editor / renderer / search & data user ? I don't understand this argument. Doesn't every tag change anywhere "break every editor/renderer/search/data user" whether or not you think it is correct? John has just as much right to go change all the amenity= tags to something more specific as you do to keep them the same. Data consumers of all kinds need to accept both kinds of changes. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
>> Discussing this for a day on the Tagging list is not enough for you to make >> this change. > > How much time should it take? I didn't really set a dead line but was > trying to get comments on the idea... A change that breaks every editor / renderer / search & data user ? 6 months minimum before you change any data IMO. And that is a minimum if lots of people seem to think it is a good idea. Better yet - just don't change it. This sort of change just isn't worth the pain and hundreds of developer hours that could be better spent on moving the project forward. Yes - this sort of change might make the tag heirachy prettier - but not enough to justify the work. If you choose to use this new tag no-one will stop you - it won't work, render or do anything but no-one will stop you. The moment you start destroying other peoples work though you are a vandal. BTW - commenting on a message you just sent. amenity=ambulance_station will work for search automatically, emergency=ambulance_station won't because it isn't supported - lets hope that isn't important to any of the users who's data you just broke. -- Brian ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 03:35, Chris Hill wrote: > You have already changed amenity=ambulance_station to > emergency=ambulance_station, which was not listed above, so you have already > started to make these worldwide changes. It wasn't documented at all on the wiki, at all, so if it was so important why didn't anyone spend 2 seconds to make a stub page? > Some people may agree with these changes, they may even be a good idea, but > deciding and changing in a few hours is a very bad idea and likely to start > a flame war (something you, John, constantly seem to relish) and possibly an > edit war. You seem to be doing all the flaming at present with personal attacks... Instead of commenting on the proposal, so far you only disagreed with one point... > Please engage brain before touching keyboard. Isn't that the point of this thread now? ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
John Smith wrote: On 30 July 2010 02:59, Chris Hill wrote: Firstly, not all hospitals are emergency hospitals, so I think that is a bad idea. Point taken... Secondly John, you seem to have unilaterally decided to make this change, and actually implemented some of it in the course of an afternoon. Where did you get the mandate to change all the tags by all of the mappers who have entered these nodes etc? Actually someone else pointed it out, and others seem to agree with it... Discussing this for a day on the Tagging list is not enough for you to make this change. How much time should it take? I didn't really set a dead line but was trying to get comments on the idea... _ You have already changed amenity=ambulance_station to emergency=ambulance_station, which was not listed above, so you have already started to make these worldwide changes. These changes are at least subject to the Automated Edits guidelines on the wiki. (Yes I know you are not a bot ...) Some people may agree with these changes, they may even be a good idea, but deciding and changing in a few hours is a very bad idea and likely to start a flame war (something you, John, constantly seem to relish) and possibly an edit war. Please engage brain before touching keyboard. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
On 30 July 2010 02:59, Chris Hill wrote: > Firstly, not all hospitals are emergency hospitals, so I think that is a bad > idea. Point taken... > Secondly John, you seem to have unilaterally decided to make this change, > and actually implemented some of it in the course of an afternoon. Where did > you get the mandate to change all the tags by all of the mappers who have > entered these nodes etc? Actually someone else pointed it out, and others seem to agree with it... > Discussing this for a day on the Tagging list is not enough for you to make > this change. How much time should it take? I didn't really set a dead line but was trying to get comments on the idea... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [Tagging] emergency=*
John Smith wrote: On 29 July 2010 20:21, Ross Scanlon wrote: 1st October 2010 Gives time to get the rendering resolved. Does anyone have a problem, or see any problems, shifting the following tags into the emergency=* tag space? amenity=police -> emergency=police_station amenity=hospital -> emergency=hospital amenity=fire_station -> emergency=fire_station We can easily mass tag the above with dual tags until the cut off date at which point we simply remove the amenity tags. Firstly, not all hospitals are emergency hospitals, so I think that is a bad idea. Secondly John, you seem to have unilaterally decided to make this change, and actually implemented some of it in the course of an afternoon. Where did you get the mandate to change all the tags by all of the mappers who have entered these nodes etc? Discussing this for a day on the Tagging list is not enough for you to make this change. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
