[OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link (was: Re: Bad Bot Activity)
Grant Slater wrote: Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link ways in my area completely unaffected by this edit. But that doesn't excuse bad bot behaviour. This is bad bot behaviour. Given that the Mapnik layer renders secondary_link, perhaps it should be documented on the wiki. I tend to prefer documented tags wherever possible, but also there are multi-lane secondaries in my area with fairly complex (flared, split, bypassing) roundabout approaches, so I'd really like this tag. Using little segments of unclassified or service road is Technically Wrong and Bad Data. I hate feeling I have to do it. I'd be in favour of someone Just Adding It to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:highway . Anyone want to give it a go? -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: Grant Slater wrote: Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link ways in my area completely unaffected by this edit. But that doesn't excuse bad bot behaviour. This is bad bot behaviour. Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://www.compton.nu/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 11:09:16 +, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote: Andrew Chadwick (email lists) wrote: Grant Slater wrote: Annoying... Stop stripping highway = xxx_link The examples you gave were all of the completely undocumented highway=secondary_link. It would be incorrect to say that the edits apply to highway=*_link; I can see several trunk_link and primary_link ways in my area completely unaffected by this edit. But that doesn't excuse bad bot behaviour. This is bad bot behaviour. Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! I completely agree. The wiki is a guideline. It is neither complete nor completely authorative. Marcus ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving. Hope it comes back up soon... 2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org: Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
Hello, Would adding also highway=tertiary_link be too much? :-) - Eugene / seav On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:27 PM, Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.comwrote: I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving. Hope it comes back up soon... 2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org: Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- http://vaes9.codedgraphic.com ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] highway=secondary_link
I'm still a relative newbie, and am confused about how this could get added to the Mapping Features. I guess like a lot of people I joined the osm community then immediately started mapping stuff in my local area. In the last few weeks I've tried to learn a bit more by reading emails sent to the lists, and by reading the wiki. I've come to the conclusion that OSM is inherently anarchic. But, although everyone is allowed to add their own tags when mapping, the community is building up an agreed set of Mapping Features on the mapping features page, via drafts, proposals and voting. But it appears this feature was added to mapping features without a draft, proposal or voting. If this is the case the feature should be removed then added after correct procedure has been followed? Bots in my limited knowledge seems unacceptable. Surely a bot should also have to go through some sort of approval process before being unleashed? Then again, I assume someone will answer with the following The first rule of OSM, is that there are no rules. (If it has been approved or I've not understood a procedure, then the mapping features page needs to make things clearer) Jason 2009/3/2 Thomas Wood grand.edgemas...@gmail.com I've just added it to the wiki, and since it's transcluded on Map Features, the wiki promptly went down on saving. Hope it comes back up soon... 2009/3/2 Andrew Chadwick (email lists) andrewc-email-li...@piffle.org: Tom Hughes wrote: Indeed, just because a tag is not mentioned on the wiki does not mean people should go round removing it! Though the tag should probably be documented too, for the avoidance of future errors amongst those who attach undue meaning to lack of documentation, and too little importance to the spirit of [[Any tags you like]] and the nature of other people's data :( -- Andrew Chadwick ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- Regards, Thomas Wood (Edgemaster) ___ 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] highway=secondary_link
Hi, Jason Cunningham wrote: But, although everyone is allowed to add their own tags when mapping, the community is building up an agreed set of Mapping Features on the mapping features page, via drafts, proposals and voting. No. The Map Features page is intended to be a documentation of tags being used, not a documentation of tags having been voted in. If you dig through the archives, you will find that never has there been a draft, proposal, or vote for highway=motorway; nonetheless it is used and not questioned by anyone. But it appears this feature was added to mapping features without a draft, proposal or voting. This often happens when we find that a feature is being widely used but omitted from Map Features. If this is the case the feature should be removed then added after correct procedure has been followed? No, that would be utterly non-OSM. We are not (yet) a bureaucracy. Bots in my limited knowledge seems unacceptable. Surely a bot should also have to go through some sort of approval process before being unleashed? We have a code of conduct on the Wiki that strongly suggests each bot be discussed on the lists *before* it is used, but we have no formal approval process. 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
