Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
On 19/12/2016 20:50, Andy Mabbett wrote: The phrase, which is also used as the title of the corresponding page on the wiki, is "Tagging for the renderer": http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer How is 'Destination' "/deliberately entering data incorrectly for the renderer"/? (From the first paragraph of the wiki page) DaveF. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Edwin Smithwrote: > Hi all, > There is a disagreement that could use a few more eyes. Destination has > the explicit purpose of telling a > navigation program the wording of a sign. It is typically used as a tag > of a Motorway Link. It is not visible > in the Mapnik in any way. > > One side of the disagreement argues that if an abbreviation appears on the > sign (Ave for instance) > it should be expanded to Avenue in the Destination Tag. The arguments are: > 1) OpenStreetMap discourages abbreviations > 2) If you search through Destinations every time Avenue appears it is a > mapper vote for expanding Ave to > Avenue. > I'd go with the intended phrase, not the abbreviation, same as we do now for name=*. > The other side of the disagreement (which I support) argues to present the > sign to the navigation program > exactly as it appears, neither abbreviating or expanding abbreviations. > The arguments are: > 1) Destination is for the use of the navigation program. If abbreviations > are changed it has no way to > know if the sign says Ave or Avenue. If they are unchanged it can make > its own decision as to what use > of abbreviations is best for its users. > 2) It is just wrong to count every Avenue as a mapper vote for expanding > Ave because it very often is > just the mapper's correct reporting that the sign has Avenue spelled out. > This is just pedantic. Maybe destination:transcription=* for literal strings if it's that huge of a thing? Most humans are going to be listening for the prompts anyway and aren't going to be bothered by a difference between the literal string and the intended phrase on the screen. If you're shooting to rebuild sign assemblies for display, you're probably better off creating a series of SVG's for your specific application. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
On 18 December 2016 at 23:48, Colin Smalewrote: > I believe the phrase is "tagging wrongly for the renderer" The phrase, which is also used as the title of the corresponding page on the wiki, is "Tagging for the renderer": http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tagging_for_the_renderer -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
On 19 December 2016 at 14:31, Edwin Smithwrote: > Hi all, > Thanks for the responses. > The point I think you miss is that it is impossible for the navigation > program to have the policy "show the driver exactly what his sign will say" > if it has been altered in any way. I didn't miss that; I wrote: if you want to record, literally, what's on a sign, use something like 'transcription=' -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
Hi all,Thanks for the responses.The point I think you miss is that it is impossible for the navigation program to have the policy "show the driver exactly what his sign will say" if it has been altered in any way. If the program is supplied an accurate copy, it can still abbreviate or unabbreviate to its hearts content.Cheers,Edwin SmithSent from Yahoo Mail on Android___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
> On Dec 19, 2016, at 10:00, talk-requ...@openstreetmap.org wrote: > > Well, it still can, the software just needs to know > how to abbreviate words, which is easy to do. The other way round, > automatically expanding an abbreviation (i.e. reading aloud) may be > ambiguous. Let me expand a little on ambiguity, so that this get clearer: Ave is both a valid abbreviation and a valid part of a street name “Street of God’s Ave” Dr have multiple meanings (Doctor, Drive, Driveway, etc.) Some countries have distinct rules where some words appear in a street name, while others. In some countries street names can contain the same abbreviation meaning different things: “R. Hilary R. Clinton” for “Rua Hilary Rodham Clinton” The software should know that Dr is a valid abbreviation for Drive, but should not be expected to understand that Dr is a valid abbreviation for Drive, as it could as well be Driveway or Doctor. Aun ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
On 18/12/2016 23:12, Andy Mabbett wrote: On 18 December 2016 at 21:40, Edwin Smithwrote: 1) Destination is for the use of the navigation program. That's a form of "tagging for the renderer". Besides, if you wan to record, literally, what's on a sign, use something like 'transcription=' There is absolutely nothing wrong with "tagging for the renderer/router". *Every* tag is to allow them to adapt the data into coherent maps, if not everything would be black & white & all roads would lead to Rome.. Tagging *incorrectly* for the renderer is, however, to be discouraged. DaveF. --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
I believe the phrase is "tagging wrongly for the renderer" - we constantly consider the users/consumers of the data when tagging, but it is clearly frowned upon to "lie" in the tagging to get something to show up in a particular way or otherwise to achieve a particular effect. Whether tagging is "correct" or not depends entirely on your frame of reference. The destination of a road can also be derived geometrically by following the road to see where it leads, but that would not be at all useful or appropriate to the navigation use case. //colin On 2016-12-19 00:12, Andy Mabbett wrote: > On 18 December 2016 at 21:40, Edwin Smithwrote: > >> 1) Destination is for the use of the navigation program. > > That's a form of "tagging for the renderer". > > Besides, if you wan to record, literally, what's on a sign, use > something like 'transcription='___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
On 18 December 2016 at 21:40, Edwin Smithwrote: > 1) Destination is for the use of the navigation program. That's a form of "tagging for the renderer". Besides, if you wan to record, literally, what's on a sign, use something like 'transcription=' -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
Hey Edwin I read through the discussion on that page. I think you focus too much on this 20:1 statistic. I too think this does not really belong on the main page, but this is not really the issue. I do not have the impression that anyone is using the 20:1 statistic as an argument whether the destination name should be abbreviated or not. The argument is that abbreviations in names being expanded for the DB is the standard _in general_ and that the destination-value is just another name(-like) tag. Which I can totally follow. After all, where is the difference between a sign on a freeway saying "Argument Ave" for the next exit and an actual street sign at an intersection saying "Argument Ave"? Why should this one sign not be abbreviated (street name) but that other sign (freeway exit name) should? As Carciofo said on the discussion page, I don't see the use case why this consensus on names should be overturned for a specific tag. You mentioned so that the actual sign could be displayed by the navigation software. Well, it still can, the software just needs to know how to abbreviate words, which is easy to do. The other way round, automatically expanding an abbreviation (i.e. reading aloud) may be ambiguous. This is an old argument, it has been brought up years ago when talked about whether to abbreviate names or not in general. That the same argument applies to Key:destination again is a clear sign that Kay:destination is in fact just another name tag. Cheers Tobias Zwick On 18.12.2016 10:40 PM, Edwin Smith wrote: > Hi all, > There is a disagreement that could use a few more eyes. Destination has > the explicit purpose of telling a > navigation program the wording of a sign. It is typically used as a tag > of a Motorway Link. It is not visible > in the Mapnik in any way. > > One side of the disagreement argues that if an abbreviation appears on > the sign (Ave for instance) > it should be expanded to Avenue in the Destination Tag. The arguments are: > 1) OpenStreetMap discourages abbreviations > 2) If you search through Destinations every time Avenue appears it is a > mapper vote for expanding Ave to > Avenue. > > The other side of the disagreement (which I support) argues to present > the sign to the navigation program > exactly as it appears, neither abbreviating or expanding abbreviations. > The arguments are: > 1) Destination is for the use of the navigation program. If > abbreviations are changed it has no way to > know if the sign says Ave or Avenue. If they are unchanged it can make > its own decision as to what use > of abbreviations is best for its users. > 2) It is just wrong to count every Avenue as a mapper vote for expanding > Ave because it very often is > just the mapper's correct reporting that the sign has Avenue spelled out. > > Check it out in the Key:destination Discussion. As you will guess, the > EDSS comments are mine. > > Cheers, > Edwin Smith > > > ___ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
[OSM-talk] Key:Destination Abbreviations
Hi all,There is a disagreement that could use a few more eyes. Destination has the explicit purpose of telling anavigation program the wording of a sign. It is typically used as a tag of a Motorway Link. It is not visiblein the Mapnik in any way. One side of the disagreement argues that if an abbreviation appears on the sign (Ave for instance)it should be expanded to Avenue in the Destination Tag. The arguments are:1) OpenStreetMap discourages abbreviations2) If you search through Destinations every time Avenue appears it is a mapper vote for expanding Ave toAvenue. The other side of the disagreement (which I support) argues to present the sign to the navigation programexactly as it appears, neither abbreviating or expanding abbreviations. The arguments are:1) Destination is for the use of the navigation program. If abbreviations are changed it has no way toknow if the sign says Ave or Avenue. If they are unchanged it can make its own decision as to what use of abbreviations is best for its users.2) It is just wrong to count every Avenue as a mapper vote for expanding Ave because it very often isjust the mapper's correct reporting that the sign has Avenue spelled out. Check it out in the Key:destination Discussion. As you will guess, the EDSS comments are mine. Cheers,Edwin Smith ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk