Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
Hi! JohnSmitty wrote: NopMap is making the assertion that tags can't be altered once they start being used, but this isn't the case since abutters etc have already been deprecated in favour of other mapping methods/techniques. No. I am making the assertion that the most important problems cannot be solved by mass retagging, thus contradicting JohnSmittys earlier statement that the lack of a mass retagging policy was the weakness rather than the lack of an approval process. You can only retag multiple used tags with the same meaning. This is the simple case. But you cannot retag a single tag with multiple used meanings. This is the real problem we are having. A working approval process would preserve the meaning of tags. Renaming already ambiguous tags is not helpful in any way. I was further making the assertion that Once an information is lost, it remains lost is a basic principle of information technology rather than a policy or an opinion. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/paths-and-roads-and-approval-oh-my-tp5913440p5921116.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
On 14 January 2011 19:24, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: No. I am making the assertion that the most important problems cannot be solved by mass retagging, thus contradicting JohnSmittys earlier statement that the lack of a mass retagging policy was the weakness rather than the lack of an approval process. And you completely missed my original comment then, not only is a policy needed on how to depreciate existing tags, such as the flow control thread was talking about combining various things that control the flow of water with some additional new tags, but you also need to be able to depreciate existing tags, give people advance notice of the change, dual tag if possible and finally be able to mass retag in the database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
The word you want is deprecate, not depreciate. Depreciate means to go down in monetary value. ---Original Email--- Subject :Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my From :mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com Date :Fri Jan 14 03:43:26 America/Chicago 2011 On 14 January 2011 19:24, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: No. I am making the assertion that the most important problems cannot be solved by mass retagging, thus contradicting JohnSmittys earlier statement that the lack of a mass retagging policy was the weakness rather than the lack of an approval process. And you completely missed my original comment then, not only is a policy needed on how to depreciate existing tags, such as the flow control thread was talking about combining various things that control the flow of water with some additional new tags, but you also need to be able to depreciate existing tags, give people advance notice of the change, dual tag if possible and finally be able to mass retag in the database. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk -- John F. Eldredge -- j...@jfeldredge.com Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better than not to think at all. -- Hypatia of Alexandria ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
Hi! Elizabeth Dodd wrote: Even that would constitute part of a policy That's not a policy but an immutable fact. :-) bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/paths-and-roads-and-approval-oh-my-tp5913440p5917575.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
On 13 January 2011 19:17, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: That's not a policy but an immutable fact. :-) It's either policy or just someone's opinion, can't be both... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
Hi! JohnSmitty wrote: On 13 January 2011 19:17, NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: That's not a policy but an immutable fact. :-) It's either policy or just someone's opinion, can't be both... Regardless of how democratically minded you are feeling, there are things in the universe that you cannot vote on. :-) bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/paths-and-roads-and-approval-oh-my-tp5913440p5918759.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
On 12 January 2011 14:36, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: By the way, this is a great example of why no approval process required for tags is a weakness, and not a strength (see Ultimate list of approved keys, http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/6203) No, the lack of a policy to mass retag is the weakness. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
JohnSmitty wrote: No, the lack of a policy to mass retag is the weakness. No. You cannot retag once the meaning of a tag has been lost in multiple different interpretations. bye Nop -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/paths-and-roads-and-approval-oh-my-tp5913440p5914117.html Sent from the General Discussion mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 03:10:38 -0800 (PST) NopMap ekkeh...@gmx.de wrote: JohnSmitty wrote: No, the lack of a policy to mass retag is the weakness. No. You cannot retag once the meaning of a tag has been lost in multiple different interpretations. bye Nop Even that would constitute part of a policy ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] [OSM Fork] paths and roads and approval, oh my
It's a monthly thing ...in OSM land lol .. smooth :) On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 11:08 PM, Anthony o...@inbox.org wrote: The wiki is confusing, though. It puts highway=residential, highway=track, highway=service, and highway=pedestrian under the subcategory of roads, but it puts highway=cycleway, highway=footway, and highway=bridleway under the subcategory of paths. Which I thought was distinguishing between motor vehicle traffic allowed and motor vehicle traffic not allowed. But then highway=pedestrian would be an exception. [] Well, according to my understanding of the wiki, a cycleway (like a bridleway and a footway) is a path and not a road. If we want to keep that distinction, maybe there should be a highway=unknown tag, for cases where we don't know if it's a path or a road. By the way, this is a great example of why no approval process required for tags is a weakness, and not a strength (see Ultimate list of approved keys, http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.tagging/6203) ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
