Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Gerald A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> It's nice to say that the renderer should follow the community, but >> this does presume the community is moving in one direction. It's also >> fairly presumptuous that the renderer author has the time or >> inclination to code, test and deploy, every single community outburst >> on a particular issue. > > I don't think they should follow every outburst, or even several outbursts. > They should follow the tags eventually, though. And whether the tags get > added by community discussion or people adding things to the database > because they like to, if enough people (or tags) get added over a long > enough period of time, then eventually they'll get rendered. >> >> So frankly renderers can show whatever they like. They don't really >> have any choice but to follow the tagging conventions being used if >> they want the best data displayed. But there's no good reason they >> can't influence the tagging schemes we use, or that we shouldn't take >> them into account when suggesting wholesale tag changes. > > Well, this is a bit of chicken and egg, though. Once a tag has any traction, > proponents can argue that a new tag will "break renderers", just by virtue > of being first, rather then addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of the > tag itself. > Anyways, it seems that this particular tag (in some renderers) is moot, as > both the new tag and the old tag are already being rendered. But my original > point was that discussions about tags should focus on how they impact the > data, not on how they impact the renderers, which we have no control over. > Gerald. OK, lets take this back to the beginning: "... why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ?" That's what I was responding to. People starting to use a new tag doesn't "break" a renderer as such (it still shows anything it used to, new stuff might not appear). Bots do break renderers. I'm arguing against bot changes, not people using barrier=gate, which they are free to do so. I also said something about making new tag recommendations that knowingly break existing tagging -- this is fairly subtle, but not about creating new tags which don't interfere (which barrier=gate doesn't). Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > It's nice to say that the renderer should follow the community, but > this does presume the community is moving in one direction. It's also > fairly presumptuous that the renderer author has the time or > inclination to code, test and deploy, every single community outburst > on a particular issue. I don't think they should follow every outburst, or even several outbursts. They should follow the tags eventually, though. And whether the tags get added by community discussion or people adding things to the database because they like to, if enough people (or tags) get added over a long enough period of time, then eventually they'll get rendered. So frankly renderers can show whatever they like. They don't really > have any choice but to follow the tagging conventions being used if > they want the best data displayed. But there's no good reason they > can't influence the tagging schemes we use, or that we shouldn't take > them into account when suggesting wholesale tag changes. > Well, this is a bit of chicken and egg, though. Once a tag has any traction, proponents can argue that a new tag will "break renderers", just by virtue of being first, rather then addressing the merits (or lack thereof) of the tag itself. Anyways, it seems that this particular tag (in some renderers) is moot, as both the new tag and the old tag are already being rendered. But my original point was that discussions about tags should focus on how they impact the data, not on how they impact the renderers, which we have no control over. Gerald. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 2:42 PM, elvin ibbotson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I feel there is a need for a little > management - possibly even a committee or working party - with respect to > the basic data structure. I would suggest a little less freedom in the > matter of feature typing, with every feature having a specific type > represented in the dataset in much the same way as location. I'm pretty sure that would take some time defining everything and classifying everything. The wiki can be used to setup such a scheme, so please gather together some knights of class and give us a taxonomy to be proud of. I tag with highway=gate and barrier=gate! ha! ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Dave Stubbs wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate. >> According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former. > > Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm > not sure a wiki redirect is the correct way of going about it... but > they're essentially the same thing. Obviously highway=gate has been > around much longer. Leaving aside barrier=gate vs. highway=gate, there was not a wiki page at Tag:highway=gate until the redirect was added. -Alex Mauer "hawke" signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
elvin ibbotson wrote: > I once tried tagging a local river as a railway line. Nothing > prevented me doing this. In the database it was (until I went back in > and fixed it) a river AND > a railway! That's not too outlandish. No railways here, but lots of roads: http://www.wetroads.co.uk/long.htm (a fascinating site...) > authors of editors and renderers would probably welcome a stint of > intensive re-writing cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Nic Roets wrote "The problem is that OSM has a lot of "momentum" (users remembering tags, tags being hardcoded into all kinds of software, hundreds of wikipages etc). So changing tags should not be done lightly." This is perhaps the only one of dozens of recent comments concerning tagging that is difficult to disagree with. There were dozens of postings on the subjects of footway versus path or cars on tracks, now it is gates and service roads that are exciting people' minds. I believe the fact that tagging queries and arguments are the cause of at least 50% of talk traffic points to at least one underlying weakness in OSM (Steve, Andy and others who were involved with devising it please look away now): All map features have certain things in common - they all have a geographical location (or point to nodes with locations), a time, and an author. These properties are intrinsic to the database. They have one more thing in common: they all represent something real in the world. A node might represent a pub or a post box. A way might represent a motorway or a state boundary. This 'type' property is, in my mind more fundamental than all the other attributes we can add using tags - access restrictions, opening times, ownership,... Not only are types fundamental but a feature can really have only one type. A post box may be built into the wall of a pub and the two share the same geographical location, but the pub is not a post box and the post box is not a pub. This leads me into a little side- street here: I understand the data treats a POI as a node with tags, so a pub is a node with the amenity=pub tag. So in my example two nodes would be needed at the same location. I'm not sure if this is allowed, but it is clearly inefficient. It would be better for POI features to simply point to a node. The POI would have the type (rather like a way with just one node) while the node would have a location but no type. In my example there would be two POI features pointing to the same node. Back to the main road, now... I once tried tagging a local river as a railway line. Nothing prevented me doing this. In the database it was (until I went back in and fixed it) a river AND a railway! What appeared on the map was then down to the coding of the renderer which could choose to show it as one or the other, or both, superimposed. It may be possible for a railway to run immediately alongside a river, but the two should obviously be separate features. They might point to the same nodes but they must be discrete ways. Since all features should have one and only one type, I think this should be reflected in the data, just as locations are. Imagine if latitude and longitude were simply tags. We would have endless arguments about whether to tag as longitude=-12.5, easting=-12.5, lon=W12.5, long=W12d30m00s,... It my be anathema to some, but I feel there is a need for a little management - possibly even a committee or working party - with respect to the basic data structure. I would suggest a little less freedom in the matter of feature typing, with every feature having a specific type represented in the dataset in much the same way as location. Logically the menu of feature types would be derived from those in widespread use but with a little more order and a little less variety than at present. Those writing renderers would no longer have to decide which tags to render or need to cater for landuse=forest as well as natural=wood. Those writing editors would be able to build proper menus based on universally-used types complete with guidance on their application. People could still add any tags they liked, but the special feature type attribute would have to be approved in a more structured manner than a few votes on the wiki. If such a radical approach were adopted, changing the dataset would be the easy bit, and authors of editors and renderers would probably welcome a stint of intensive re-writing if it saved hours of work in the future. The real hurdle is in getting some sort of agreement within the OSM community. I know I for one would be far more inclined to devote time to collecting and adding data and even to getting involved in the software/data engineering aspects of OSM if I did not believe its foundations were unstable. But if it continues to grow without training or pruning (note the clever metaphor switch there) I worry it could become a garden overgrown with brambles - full of good things impossible to harvest. elvin ibbotson ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
David Earl escribió: > On 10/11/2008 11:18, Marc Schütz wrote: > >>> Gerald A wrote: >>> Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up eventually. >>> But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use >>> highway=barrier rather than barrier=gate. >>> >> It has not. There may be ten times more highway=gate in the DB than >> barrier=gate, but what percentage of the community that is aware of >> the new tags actually prefers the old tags when adding new objects? >> You'd have to watch the relative frequency of the two tags over time >> to see, which one is growing, and therefore, on which the community >> has decided. >> yep that´s the real vote and, yes, higway=gate has 17000 uses and barrier=gate has 1400 in europe but barrier=gate is been there for just 2 weeks. > > It's a chicken and egg though. I really don't care what what the words I > have to type to get a gate are, but if the renderers don't support the > new tag I'll be inclined to carry on using the old one (since there is > no advantage in using the new one, and the old one is built in to my > fingers). Indeed, if the renderers don't actually drop support for the > old one, I can't see any particular reason to change - the new tag > doesn't do anything extra, it's just a self-selected group of people's > preference for one word instead of another. > > is just a matter of concept, a gate is a highway or a barrier? and a matter of tag organization. but the answer is up to each of us. the use you choose will be that real vote > And so long as I or others continue to use the old one, what incentive > is there for the renderers to switch? > > David > > osmrender does support "barrier=gate". > ___ > 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] barrier=gate
Dave wrote: > If everybody starts using barrier=gate ultimately happy that > it's much > better than highway=gate, then at some point the renderers will > follow. I've just checked the Osmarender stylesheet for z17 and it contains: So your open, locked or other gate will currently render the same whether you use barrier=gate or highway=gate in the Osmarender layer already (presuming all the clients have been updated since the change was made). Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:47 AM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing >> >> > highway=gate. >> >> > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the >> >> > former. >> >> >> >> Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm >> >> not sure a wiki redirect is the correct way of going about it... but >> >> they're essentially the same thing. Obviously highway=gate has been >> >> around much longer. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Is the community OK with this ? >> >> >> >> Meh. >> >> >> >> > If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? >> >> >> >> Because that would imply the One True Way is to tag gates with >> >> barrier=gate. Because it would break every existing gate out there >> >> relying on a "legacy" renderer. To get 1/10th already suggest to me >> >> shenanigans though. >> >> It's not completely impossible to have two tags for the same thing you >> >> know. Just leave it be. >> >> >> >> Dave >> > >> > This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone >> > proposes >> > or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. >> > When >> > those flaws are pointed out, the OSM pragmatists just say "Oh, we can >> > always >> > change it later. It's a Wiki, after all." But the truth is, you can't >> > change >> > it, because when someone does come up with an alternative tagging scheme >> > (like barrier= or path= or crossing=) that shows some merit over the >> > original, those same pragmatists come back and say "What!? That tag is >> > wrong/invalid/stupid because the database already has ten thousand >> > entries >> > of X. And besides, you'll break everything!" >> > >> >> There's a difference between coming up with a new tagging scheme, and >> changing every existing instance in the database. >> Note that I haven't actually at any point said that you shouldn't use >> barrier=gate. I've actually used it a few times myself, and it's not >> destructive on highway=gate. With path and crossing the proposals are >> somewhat incompatible with what was there already, and the merit in >> not making it compatible wasn't ever obvious. >> >> But there's an expectation here (or more lack of one): I know that if >> I use barrier=gate it's not going to get rendered on a lot of stuff. >> Fine, my choice, when enough data collects someone will probably patch >> the renderer. >> >> On the otherhand if I bot change everything immediately, I'm doing two >> things: I'm forcing everyone to do what *I* say, and also I'm making >> damn sure that gates won't be rendered. As a render author I have two >> choices... patch my renderer, or accuse you of blatent vandalism and >> revert your bot... which probably isn't somewhere we want to go. >> >> Dave > > My point is it's disingenuous to say "There is no right or wrong or > recommended tags" on one hand, and then say "Don't change X, you'll break > everything." > While the words "there is no right or wrong or recommended tags" may have at some point been said, I think you have to take them out of context to make them disingenuous with "don't change it, stop breaking things". There's no one source determining right/wrong/recommended, but that's not to say there isn't a right/wrong/recommended for some particular task. To say map features isn't a tag recommendation page would be a bit like sticking your head in the sand and singing la-la-la-la. And to say there isn't a right and a wrong way to tag something to make it show up on the cycle map for instance, is also quite clearly wrong. The cycle map has it's own recommended tags page too. And just to add to that, I think everybody will agree that tagging, say, your local beach with highway=motorway is *wrong* for pretty much any sane interpretation. It's all about whether you have the right to enforce your view of right/wrong/recommended through the use of a bot, or knowingly recommending something which will be incompatible with previously well used tags. To go back to your original e-mail, "Oh, we can always change it later. It's a Wiki, after all.", implies to me that I agree you're making it better. If everybody starts using barrier=gate ultimately happy that it's much better than highway=gate, then at some point the renderers will follow. If you start just throwing nuclear warheads at particular tags then you just piss people off. Especially all the people who are still quite happy to continue using highway=gate. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On 10/11/2008 11:18, Marc Schütz wrote: >> Gerald A wrote: >>> Renderers should be following the project. If the community >>> decides one tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the >>> renders will catch up eventually. >> But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use >> highway=barrier rather than barrier=gate. > > It has not. There may be ten times more highway=gate in the DB than > barrier=gate, but what percentage of the community that is aware of > the new tags actually prefers the old tags when adding new objects? > You'd have to watch the relative frequency of the two tags over time > to see, which one is growing, and therefore, on which the community > has decided. It's a chicken and egg though. I really don't care what what the words I have to type to get a gate are, but if the renderers don't support the new tag I'll be inclined to carry on using the old one (since there is no advantage in using the new one, and the old one is built in to my fingers). Indeed, if the renderers don't actually drop support for the old one, I can't see any particular reason to change - the new tag doesn't do anything extra, it's just a self-selected group of people's preference for one word instead of another. And so long as I or others continue to use the old one, what incentive is there for the renderers to switch? David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
> Gerald A wrote: > > Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one > > tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up > > eventually. > > But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use highway=barrier > rather than barrier=gate. It has not. There may be ten times more highway=gate in the DB than barrier=gate, but what percentage of the community that is aware of the new tags actually prefers the old tags when adding new objects? You'd have to watch the relative frequency of the two tags over time to see, which one is growing, and therefore, on which the community has decided. Regards, Marc -- GMX Download-Spiele: Preizsturz! Alle Puzzle-Spiele Deluxe über 60% billiger. http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/download/puzzle/index.html ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it? > > i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes there's a > time penalty. > > Certainly there are oodles of "gated roads" in rural Britain where > this applies - there's one on my stretch of NCN. :) > There's quite a few round my area on residential streets designed to let the emergency services pass, but permanently closed otherwise. I've just mapped them as 'highway=gate' for now, thinking of them as physical objects.. I hope any change to 'barrier=gate' doesn't automatically imply additional semantics. Graham ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Gerald A wrote: > Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one > tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up > eventually. But the community has decided with a vote of 1:10 to use highway=barrier rather than barrier=gate. Besides, renderers are mostly external projects done by a few individuals. I don't think we can prescribe what they *should* be doing. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:14 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing > highway=gate. > >> > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the > >> > former. > >> > >> Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm > >> not sure a wiki redirect is the correct way of going about it... but > >> they're essentially the same thing. Obviously highway=gate has been > >> around much longer. > >> > >> > > >> > Is the community OK with this ? > >> > >> Meh. > >> > >> > If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? > >> > >> Because that would imply the One True Way is to tag gates with > >> barrier=gate. Because it would break every existing gate out there > >> relying on a "legacy" renderer. To get 1/10th already suggest to me > >> shenanigans though. > >> It's not completely impossible to have two tags for the same thing you > >> know. Just leave it be. > >> > >> Dave > > > > This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone > proposes > > or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. > When > > those flaws are pointed out, the OSM pragmatists just say "Oh, we can > always > > change it later. It's a Wiki, after all." But the truth is, you can't > change > > it, because when someone does come up with an alternative tagging scheme > > (like barrier= or path= or crossing=) that shows some merit over the > > original, those same pragmatists come back and say "What!? That tag is > > wrong/invalid/stupid because the database already has ten thousand > entries > > of X. And besides, you'll break everything!" > > > > There's a difference between coming up with a new tagging scheme, and > changing every existing instance in the database. > Note that I haven't actually at any point said that you shouldn't use > barrier=gate. I've actually used it a few times myself, and it's not > destructive on highway=gate. With path and crossing the proposals are > somewhat incompatible with what was there already, and the merit in > not making it compatible wasn't ever obvious. > > But there's an expectation here (or more lack of one): I know that if > I use barrier=gate it's not going to get rendered on a lot of stuff. > Fine, my choice, when enough data collects someone will probably patch > the renderer. > > On the otherhand if I bot change everything immediately, I'm doing two > things: I'm forcing everyone to do what *I* say, and also I'm making > damn sure that gates won't be rendered. As a render author I have two > choices... patch my renderer, or accuse you of blatent vandalism and > revert your bot... which probably isn't somewhere we want to go. > > Dave > My point is it's disingenuous to say "There is no right or wrong or recommended tags" on one hand, and then say "Don't change X, you'll break everything." Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd agree that tagging a gate means "there is a gate here" - so let's > not assume that it blocks routing. This assumption of traffic restriction is also inherently urban, gates are increasingly used to control animal traffic outside the cityscape. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate. >> > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the >> > former. >> >> Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm >> not sure a wiki redirect is the correct way of going about it... but >> they're essentially the same thing. Obviously highway=gate has been >> around much longer. >> >> > >> > Is the community OK with this ? >> >> Meh. >> >> > If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? >> >> Because that would imply the One True Way is to tag gates with >> barrier=gate. Because it would break every existing gate out there >> relying on a "legacy" renderer. To get 1/10th already suggest to me >> shenanigans though. >> It's not completely impossible to have two tags for the same thing you >> know. Just leave it be. >> >> Dave > > This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone proposes > or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. When > those flaws are pointed out, the OSM pragmatists just say "Oh, we can always > change it later. It's a Wiki, after all." But the truth is, you can't change > it, because when someone does come up with an alternative tagging scheme > (like barrier= or path= or crossing=) that shows some merit over the > original, those same pragmatists come back and say "What!? That tag is > wrong/invalid/stupid because the database already has ten thousand entries > of X. And besides, you'll break everything!" > There's a difference between coming up with a new tagging scheme, and changing every existing instance in the database. Note that I haven't actually at any point said that you shouldn't use barrier=gate. I've actually used it a few times myself, and it's not destructive on highway=gate. With path and crossing the proposals are somewhat incompatible with what was there already, and the merit in not making it compatible wasn't ever obvious. But there's an expectation here (or more lack of one): I know that if I use barrier=gate it's not going to get rendered on a lot of stuff. Fine, my choice, when enough data collects someone will probably patch the renderer. On the otherhand if I bot change everything immediately, I'm doing two things: I'm forcing everyone to do what *I* say, and also I'm making damn sure that gates won't be rendered. As a render author I have two choices... patch my renderer, or accuse you of blatent vandalism and revert your bot... which probably isn't somewhere we want to go. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone proposes >> or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. When >> those flaws are pointed out, > > > That is by no means unique to OSM. Unix / C had a function called 'creat' > for almost 30 years. > > The problem is that OSM has a lot of "momentum" (users remembering tags, > tags being hardcoded into all kinds of software, hundreds of wikipages etc). > So changing tags should not be done lightly. > > >> the OSM pragmatists just say "Oh, we can always change it later. It's a >> Wiki, after all." But the truth is, you can't change it, because when >> someone does come up with an alternative tagging scheme (like barrier= or >> path= or crossing=) that shows some merit over the original, those same >> pragmatists come back and say "What!? That tag is wrong/invalid/stupid >> because the database already has ten thousand entries of X. And besides, >> you'll break everything!" >> >> Karl >> > > This is a strong argument for careful consideration before putting something into widespread use. Of course, this risks "death by discussion" but at least some opportunity for discussion should be given. In any case, definitely don't tell people "Oh, we can always change it later" when in fact we can't. Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Karl Newman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone proposes > or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. When > those flaws are pointed out, That is by no means unique to OSM. Unix / C had a function called 'creat' for almost 30 years. The problem is that OSM has a lot of "momentum" (users remembering tags, tags being hardcoded into all kinds of software, hundreds of wikipages etc). So changing tags should not be done lightly. > the OSM pragmatists just say "Oh, we can always change it later. It's a > Wiki, after all." But the truth is, you can't change it, because when > someone does come up with an alternative tagging scheme (like barrier= or > path= or crossing=) that shows some merit over the original, those same > pragmatists come back and say "What!? That tag is wrong/invalid/stupid > because the database already has ten thousand entries of X. And besides, > you'll break everything!" > > Karl > ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 2:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate. > > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the > former. > > Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm > not sure a wiki redirect is the correct way of going about it... but > they're essentially the same thing. Obviously highway=gate has been > around much longer. > > > > > Is the community OK with this ? > > Meh. > > > If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? > > Because that would imply the One True Way is to tag gates with > barrier=gate. Because it would break every existing gate out there > relying on a "legacy" renderer. To get 1/10th already suggest to me > shenanigans though. > It's not completely impossible to have two tags for the same thing you > know. Just leave it be. > > Dave > This is one of the major problems with the OSM community. Someone proposes or just starts using a particular tagging scheme which has some flaws. When those flaws are pointed out, the OSM pragmatists just say "Oh, we can always change it later. It's a Wiki, after all." But the truth is, you can't change it, because when someone does come up with an alternative tagging scheme (like barrier= or path= or crossing=) that shows some merit over the original, those same pragmatists come back and say "What!? That tag is wrong/invalid/stupid because the database already has ten thousand entries of X. And besides, you'll break everything!" Karl ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tordanik wrote: > Nic Roets schrieb: >> According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate. >> According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former. >> >> Is the community OK with this ? >> If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? > > Because we cannot tell whether "the community" is ok with this without > watching how tagwatch numbers will develop in the future. So far, we can > only tell that most of those who have bothered to vote in the wiki are > ok with this. > > Personally, I'd agree if my contributions were bot-changed in cases like > this, but there are people who wouldn't. Maybe it is possible to set up > an opt-in bot that only "updates" tagging of those users who have put > themselves on a list (wiki page/category or other solution). Bot runs > should also be announced early, so those who disagree with a particular > retagging can remove themselves from the list in time. What if I came along & moved one of your gates 0.5 metres? Is it my gate? Your gate? Do we both have to opt in, or out? Enjoy planning the wiki list :) Mark -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJFyR8JfMmcSPNh94RAj80AJ4t9J3yJyaqHwK1Clxb5XFUVRS1kQCcDHrM 8Ol8NZSjqab6OEpxFtW0W4M= =nuPo -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Ed Loach wrote: > I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show > there is a gate across a way. Examples I've seen so far include a > gate beyond which is a service road for a supermarket (so > permissions for the service road are down to who the keyholder is, > gates across footpaths (which can be opened), gates into fields (so > the landowner has the key) and similar. Oh, sure. But you deal with those access restrictions in exactly the same way you deal with any other access restriction in OSM - if access is permissive or blocked, you tag up a short way which is only "highway=track,foot=permissive" or whatever. Just as you would if there were a bolard. I'd agree that tagging a gate means "there is a gate here" - so let's not assume that it blocks routing. cheers Richard ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:32 PM, Gerald A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> >> Because it would break every existing gate out there >> relying on a "legacy" renderer. > > Leaving aside the question of the gate tags completely, I want to address > this bit of your points. > I hear lots about not tagging for display or the renders. I know it happens, > such is life. But it's not a compelling argument to keep the status quo, and > shouldn't be mentioned as such -- or else we should just use Google maps, > because they are better/more complete/all that nonsense. That's not "tagging for the renderer". When people talk about "tagging for the renderer" they're talking about tagging something *incorrectly* to make it show up on a renderer. So for example, tagging a fence as a powerline because the renderer displays powerlines as thin black lines. Where the renderer is expecting one tag for gates, and people are using another, then that's just a tagging disagreement. > Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one tag > over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up > eventually. Or we should allow tagging for renderers, which I would be > against. The discussions about tags should focus on the merits of the data, > not outside factors. Sure, theoretically that would be nice. But from a practical point of view you've broken things. In isolation changing one tag doesn't seem so bad, but if we start making a habit out of this then there won't be a renderer around displaying any data. It's nice to say that the renderer should follow the community, but this does presume the community is moving in one direction. It's also fairly presumptuous that the renderer author has the time or inclination to code, test and deploy, every single community outburst on a particular issue. So frankly renderers can show whatever they like. They don't really have any choice but to follow the tagging conventions being used if they want the best data displayed. But there's no good reason they can't influence the tagging schemes we use, or that we shouldn't take them into account when suggesting wholesale tag changes. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Gerald A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one tag > over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up > eventually. Or we should allow tagging for renderers, which I would be > against. The discussions about tags should focus on the merits of the data, > not outside factors. Two problems with your argument: 1. "The community" as no coherent opinion. On any issue you're going to get significant chunks of the "community" taking opposite sides. 2. The renderers are part of the community too. Also, we are beginning to reach the point where renderers are not the only output. There are people out there tagging because they want routing program to produce better output. There tags rarely appear on renderers but are equally important. "Merits of data" discussions tend to get bogged down by the fact that every gate in the world is unique and no amount of tagging will change that. So we focus on practical issues of getting maximum information for minimum tagging which is a much easier goal. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On 09/11/2008 12:32, Gerald A wrote: > Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one > tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up > eventually. That may be indeed what many people would say, but in the absence of any standardisation of tags and the vehement opinion of many that there explicitly *shouldn't* be any standardisation of tags, the renderers will continue to yield the power and the effective decision making. If it weren't that all our renderers map highway=motorway, I rather think we'd see highway=freeway, autobahn, autostrade, autoroute, ... in widespread use. Many would defend the right to do precisely that, and the only reason it doesn't happen currently is because the renderers don't do anything with them. Perhaps they should. In any case "the community" hasn't decided - clearly highway=gate is the still the preferred option as few poeple have seen any overwhelming advantage (such as gates disappearing from the renderer for example) to update their areas. In practice, I'm sure it is an iterative process involving emerging consensus rather that anyone deciding one way or another. But the pragmatist and perfectionist camps are both quite strident in their view. Me, I'll just go with the flow, though I still think the words used for tags are pretty much irrelevant and that abstracting away from what is actually stored, e.g. for translation and cultural purposes would be good. David. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On 11/9/08, Ed Loach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Richard asked: > > > > Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it? > > > > i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes > > there's a > > time penalty. > > > I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show > there is a gate across a way. Examples I've seen so far include a > gate beyond which is a service road for a supermarket (so > permissions for the service road are down to who the keyholder is, > gates across footpaths (which can be opened), gates into fields (so > the landowner has the key) and similar. There are lots of reasons > for gates, but it's been a long, long time since I saw one across a > road (I was in Scotland IIRC) which is like that you describe above. highway toll gate But of course, "traffic" can also mean horse ridges, cyclists etc, all of which come across gates on the ways they go on, that are open and incur a time penalty. "please shut the gate". Sometimes a gate is just a gate. For the majority of cases I use gate when mapping, they are able to be opened, but in a small subset of this, when they are on a road, for car drivers, the majority appear to be locked. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On 09/11/2008 13:01, Ed Loach wrote: > Richard asked: > >> Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it? >> >> i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes >> there's a >> time penalty. > > I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show > there is a gate across a way. Examples I've seen so far include a > gate beyond which is a service road for a supermarket (so > permissions for the service road are down to who the keyholder is, > gates across footpaths (which can be opened), gates into fields (so > the landowner has the key) and similar. There are lots of reasons > for gates, but it's been a long, long time since I saw one across a > road (I was in Scotland IIRC) which is like that you describe above. Lot's of industrial estates and commercial parks have gates (many attended). Chesterford Research Park in Essex wouldn't let me in through their gate to map their extensive road system (and it's not as if it is one company's site or anything). I've also encountered an increasing number of residential roads which have gates, some of which you can get through, others ionly when a resident comes out. So the kinds of rural gate RF is referring to are declining, but urban gates are on the increase. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Richard asked: > Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it? > > i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes > there's a > time penalty. I wouldn't have said so. The point of tagging is a gate is to show there is a gate across a way. Examples I've seen so far include a gate beyond which is a service road for a supermarket (so permissions for the service road are down to who the keyholder is, gates across footpaths (which can be opened), gates into fields (so the landowner has the key) and similar. There are lots of reasons for gates, but it's been a long, long time since I saw one across a road (I was in Scotland IIRC) which is like that you describe above. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 5:24 AM, Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Because it would break every existing gate out there > relying on a "legacy" renderer. Leaving aside the question of the gate tags completely, I want to address this bit of your points. I hear lots about not tagging for display or the renders. I know it happens, such is life. But it's not a compelling argument to keep the status quo, and shouldn't be mentioned as such -- or else we should just use Google maps, because they are better/more complete/all that nonsense. Renderers should be following the project. If the community decides one tag over the other, or both, or even neither, the renders will catch up eventually. Or we should allow tagging for renderers, which I would be against. The discussions about tags should focus on the merits of the data, not outside factors. Thanks, Gerald ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Nic Roets wrote: > Can we agree that a barrier=gate node implies that no traffic is > allowed through unless it's enabled with tags like access=yes and > foot=yes ? Isn't the point of a gate that you can open it? i.e. traffic is allowed through, but for routing purposes there's a time penalty. Certainly there are oodles of "gated roads" in rural Britain where this applies - there's one on my stretch of NCN. :) cheers Richard\ ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 11:34:37AM +0100, Tordanik wrote: Personally, I'd agree if my contributions were bot-changed in cases like this, but there are people who wouldn't. Maybe it is possible to set up an opt-in bot that only "updates" tagging of those users who have put themselves on a list (wiki page/category or other solution). Actually I think this is a nice idea. It needs to be fleshed out some more (e.g. I'd like to get an (automatic) notification if things I've edited in the past are changed by this bot), but the basic principle is clear. CU Sascha -- http://sascha.silbe.org/ http://www.infra-silbe.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
Nic Roets schrieb: > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate. > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former. > > Is the community OK with this ? > If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? Because we cannot tell whether "the community" is ok with this without watching how tagwatch numbers will develop in the future. So far, we can only tell that most of those who have bothered to vote in the wiki are ok with this. Personally, I'd agree if my contributions were bot-changed in cases like this, but there are people who wouldn't. Maybe it is possible to set up an opt-in bot that only "updates" tagging of those users who have put themselves on a list (wiki page/category or other solution). Bot runs should also be announced early, so those who disagree with a particular retagging can remove themselves from the list in time. > Can we agree that a barrier=gate node implies that no traffic is allowed > through unless it's enabled with tags like access=yes and foot=yes ? The wiki page for Key:barrier states "By default access=no is implied . so tag who can pass the node." The wiki template also says "Implies: access=no". So this currently applies to all barriers, including gate. Assuming that an unspecified barrier blocks traffic is the only thing that makes sense for me. Tordanik ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate
On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Nic Roets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > According to the wiki redirects, barrier=gate is replacing highway=gate. > According to tagwatch, the latter is 10 times more popular than the former. Yes, because the barrier=gate people decided it makes more sense. I'm not sure a wiki redirect is the correct way of going about it... but they're essentially the same thing. Obviously highway=gate has been around much longer. > > Is the community OK with this ? Meh. > If yes, why aren't we running a bot to perform the changes ? Because that would imply the One True Way is to tag gates with barrier=gate. Because it would break every existing gate out there relying on a "legacy" renderer. To get 1/10th already suggest to me shenanigans though. It's not completely impossible to have two tags for the same thing you know. Just leave it be. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Pieren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'd much rather have the discussion here on the list (or on a >> dedicated list). >> If a consensus has been reached Map Features can be updated. I don't >> think there is a need for a formal voting process (especially if it is >> so easy to rig). > > It's funny you say that because I just tried yesterday what you > suggest. I sent an email to this ML about the tag "alt_name" which is > used by the application Namefinder and has been promoted in only one > email some months ago by the author of this application. > The tag is not widely used, not only because it is not commonly > required but also because it is documented nowhere. > That's why I think we should - at least - write some words about this > tag in the Map Features page. I could also create a wiki proposal and > start the long and heavy voting process... > > So far, I received only two feedbacks, both positive. > Do you consider that the consensus is reached ? Where is this method > better than 10 votes in the wiki ? It mey be not better, but I think it is easier. The two people that have replied to your message might not have bothered to vote on the wiki. And I do think this is sufficient. If nobody bothers to write "Don't do this, because ..." there can't be too much wrong with the proposal. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd much rather have the discussion here on the list (or on a > dedicated list). > If a consensus has been reached Map Features can be updated. I don't > think there is a need for a formal voting process (especially if it is > so easy to rig). It's funny you say that because I just tried yesterday what you suggest. I sent an email to this ML about the tag "alt_name" which is used by the application Namefinder and has been promoted in only one email some months ago by the author of this application. The tag is not widely used, not only because it is not commonly required but also because it is documented nowhere. That's why I think we should - at least - write some words about this tag in the Map Features page. I could also create a wiki proposal and start the long and heavy voting process... So far, I received only two feedbacks, both positive. Do you consider that the consensus is reached ? Where is this method better than 10 votes in the wiki ? regards Pieren ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
> How does a UK printed map of France look like? It probably depends on the publisher. I have to hand a 2001 Europe Road Atlas, printed in the UK by Collins. This doesn't distinguish between primary and trunk roads in the UK (all are red) and Motorways are green with two narrow yellow lines down them. This scheme is used throughout the atlas (so in France the A28 shows as per a UK motorway; the A16 has a solid yellow line down the middle to indicate it is a toll motorway rather than just a motorway). In Germany I can't quite work out the numbering system, but roads labelled such as 61 near Mannheim are shown as motorway colours. In a similar way to any publisher can choose their own colour scheme for a road atlas, anyone who renders the OSM data can choose their own colour scheme. The colours aren't defined in the database as far as I know. It makes sense to use a consistent scheme across the whole map (to my mind), although different people may prefer different consistent schemes. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Ben Laenen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Of course not, green trunk roads and blue motorways don't make a lot of > sense in 99% of the world. It makes sense in the UK, where this project > happens to have started, so now that it became a true worldwide > project, why can't we give other countries the same "privilege" of > having own colour schemes for their road network that make sense in > that country? Whether something makes sense depends more on the viewer of the map than on map data. A UK viewer probably expects motorways to be blue reagardless whether that motorway is in the UK or elsewhere. I would not want a motorway to change color on the French/German border just because differen coloring styles are common in France and Germany. How does a UK printed map of France look like? > > But it should have a "consistent" look of course, meaning that the > differences for each country are very small, and mostly involves some > icons or highway types, and things like highway number colours. Other things need to be localized to the area that is shown on the map. It does not make much sense to put US Interstate numbers on blue Autobahn shields for example. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
"Robert (Jamie) Munro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I for one don't vote very much, but do care about due process and the > results. I will follow the tagging advice that has been voted for, > because I know that several people have thought about the issues and > more of them thought one option was better than the other. I agree with you here. I care for the results, but the process is too bothersome for me to participate. I don't like having discussions on a number of web pages. I'd much rather have the discussion here on the list (or on a dedicated list). Reasonable mail clients and the list archive are good at keeping list threads together. This makes it very easy to follow a number of discussions without having to jump across many web pages. The thread in the archive can be linked to from the proposal and later the tag page for everybody to find. If a consensus has been reached Map Features can be updated. I don't think there is a need for a formal voting process (especially if it is so easy to rig). Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Wednesday 22 October 2008, Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote: > Frederik Ramm wrote: > > Hi, > > > > vegard wrote: > >>> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile > >>> and in China? Of course not, green trunk roads and blue motorways don't make a lot of sense in 99% of the world. It makes sense in the UK, where this project happens to have started, so now that it became a true worldwide project, why can't we give other countries the same "privilege" of having own colour schemes for their road network that make sense in that country? But it should have a "consistent" look of course, meaning that the differences for each country are very small, and mostly involves some icons or highway types, and things like highway number colours. > >> Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all, > > > > Ok, then: "Is it really so important for routing software to work > > identically in Chile and in China"? > > 100% abosolutely. Certainly. Undoubtedly. How can you even ask such > an obvious question? > > You can't really be suggesting writing different routing software for > every part of the world can you? It should work the same way *but* each country will need its own ruleset to translate tags in a specific country into access rules for certain vehicle types. Thinking you could mold the whole world into one set of tags is naive and it's been shown plenty of times that it just won't work. So, you don't need to rewrite the routing software for each country, you just need to make a router that uses a table with country specific information. Ben ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > vegard wrote: >>> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in >>> China? >> Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all, > > Ok, then: "Is it really so important for routing software to work > identically in Chile and in China"? 100% abosolutely. Certainly. Undoubtedly. How can you even ask such an obvious question? You can't really be suggesting writing different routing software for every part of the world can you? You may as well have entirely separate OSMs. In fact that would make it much easier, because you'd know where to use engine A and where to use engine B. >> It's just a bit silly to encourage keeping of >> highway=gate when we've just voted on barrier=gate. > > Who's "we"? *I* have not voted. You could have. The fact that you chose not to implies that you don't mind either way. That's normally how democratic systems work. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkj/MVMACgkQz+aYVHdncI1FkgCdHabNY7VsDRSSYE6VgpiHVz8v LosAoISBThcto3QS6+QVNk3h+YTVhoDf =ySac -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > >>> We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start >>> putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on >>> Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and >>> everyone else. That's why we don't want to go down this road. (And >>> before anyone asks, a vote in which 0.01% of mappers participate does >>> not elevate one idea about what is "good" above hundreds of others.) >> I agree with you here, but voting seems to be the current practice. > > It may seem so, but in fact voting is just a pastime of a tiny minority > of OSMers; the vast majority don't care for either the process or the > results. You allege that, but what evidence do you have to back it up? I for one don't vote very much, but do care about due process and the results. I will follow the tagging advice that has been voted for, because I know that several people have thought about the issues and more of them thought one option was better than the other. Robert (Jamie) Munro -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkj/MWUACgkQz+aYVHdncI0vTACgpMHHZ//LnFTT9Fcu4sONJ7js ukgAn1dECxM5SJvx8vgInlc4LazqtOhc =Nop4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:11:21AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > > If I put my mind to it, I could easily muster enough OSMers I know > personally to turn over the highway=gate vote next month, just for the > fun of it. That should demonstrate to you how little weight the process > carries. > > So I'd rather not be too fast with implementing the results of a vote. There. We agree! Neither I think we need to be very fast with it. But that doesn't mean we should start thinking about it, and thinking about how to handle such things. This could also include improving the voting process. > > >It's just a bit silly to encourage keeping of > >highway=gate when we've just voted on barrier=gate. > > Who's "we"? *I* have not voted. There are more than 2.000 different > people who have used highway=gate. How many people have voted to replace > it with something else, and do you really think this is enough? > Well. This is actually a good example of a quite obvious change. Imho. A gate is not a highway, it's abarrier! But I realize there are more complex and disputed changes. And btw - I didn't vote either, but I would have, had the voting process been more available :) (I know of it, I just don't filter it out from rest and participate...) -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > vegard wrote: >>> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in >>> China? >> >> Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all, > > Ok, then: "Is it really so important for routing software to work > identically in Chile and in China"? At least I would expect a routing software to work with the data from any place of the world. As I would expect the Mapnik layer to look consistant. Luckily most people (I guess) want their data to show up on the map and therefore they conform to whatever the map styles support. Unfortunately this also results in "mapping for the renderer". Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:54:52AM +0200, Sebastian Spaeth wrote: > Let me disagree. You are implying that just because I can add stuff to > map features, I can also decide to mark all highway=* as deprecated? I > think we should supercede highway=* with path=* because that makes so > much more sense. ;-) Yes, why not? It’s a wiki after all. Others are free to revert your changes. However, to prevent edit wars, some method of consensus would be useful. One already in the OSM wiki is proposing and voting. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi, vegard wrote: >> Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in >> China? > > Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all, Ok, then: "Is it really so important for routing software to work identically in Chile and in China"? Look at it this way: How many Chinese have taken part in the vote that "deprecated" highway=gate? None. It is a vote taken exclusively by Europeans. A few years hence, the majority of OSMers might well be Chinese, with, perhaps, a wholly different approach on how to tag things and different ideas on what "feels right". They might well hold a vote and decide to use highway=gate instead of barrier=gate... as long as 10 people take part in a vote you can go back and forth and back again every month. If I put my mind to it, I could easily muster enough OSMers I know personally to turn over the highway=gate vote next month, just for the fun of it. That should demonstrate to you how little weight the process carries. So I'd rather not be too fast with implementing the results of a vote. > It's just a bit silly to encourage keeping of > highway=gate when we've just voted on barrier=gate. Who's "we"? *I* have not voted. There are more than 2.000 different people who have used highway=gate. How many people have voted to replace it with something else, and do you really think this is enough? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > >>> We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start >>> putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on >>> Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and >>> everyone else. That's why we don't want to go down this road. (And >>> before anyone asks, a vote in which 0.01% of mappers participate does >>> not elevate one idea about what is "good" above hundreds of others.) >> >> I agree with you here, but voting seems to be the current practice. > > It may seem so, but in fact voting is just a pastime of a tiny minority > of OSMers; the vast majority don't care for either the process or the > results. Voting on new tags is as much current practice as, say, tagging > lampposts or park benches - some do it with fervour, most don't care. > Which is ok - anyone has the right to tag lampposts or to vote. As long > as they let the others do their thing. Sure. I am just assuming that tags that have been added to Map Features since the practice of voting started have been voted on. Or, are there features being added that have been deemed "recommended" by other means? Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 10:11:14PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > vegard wrote: > >I agree. this democracy and meritocracy thing is good for something, but > >for the map to be really useful as a *world* map and not separated > >islands, > > Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in > China? > Well. You have to remember that rendering is not all, and if you *actually* want to render all of the world, then you'll want to support the tags used. It's just a bit silly to encourage keeping of highway=gate when we've just voted on barrier=gate. Ok, we should and can not forbid it. But we can call it deprecated, and encourage the switch. IMNSO, -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi, >> We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start >> putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on >> Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and >> everyone else. That's why we don't want to go down this road. (And >> before anyone asks, a vote in which 0.01% of mappers participate does >> not elevate one idea about what is "good" above hundreds of others.) > > I agree with you here, but voting seems to be the current practice. It may seem so, but in fact voting is just a pastime of a tiny minority of OSMers; the vast majority don't care for either the process or the results. Voting on new tags is as much current practice as, say, tagging lampposts or park benches - some do it with fervour, most don't care. Which is ok - anyone has the right to tag lampposts or to vote. As long as they let the others do their thing. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi, vegard wrote: > I agree. this democracy and meritocracy thing is good for something, but > for the map to be really useful as a *world* map and not separated > islands, Is it really so important for the map to look the same in Chile and in China? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:34:39PM -0400, Matthias Julius wrote: > > I also think it is confusing if two equivalent tags are recommended > for the same thing. If by whatever process it is determined that a > new wah of tagging gates is recommended the old tag should point to > the new one with the indication that the recommendation has changed. I agree. this democracy and meritocracy thing is good for something, but for the map to be really useful as a *world* map and not separated islands, people need to understand that agreeing on tags are good. That said, I have nothing against people using different tags for things not decided yet, but harmonizing and deciding on a common scheme *should* be a goal for everyone. > > We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start > > putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on > > Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and > > everyone else. That's why we don't want to go down this road. (And > > before anyone asks, a vote in which 0.01% of mappers participate does > > not elevate one idea about what is "good" above hundreds of others.) > > I agree with you here, but voting seems to be the current practice. > I always at least discuss on talk@ or on IRC if I'm a little in doubt. I'll willingly admit that my ideas are not always best either, and if someone has already thought of something better, we're all better off in the long run. This "do as you like, we're not deciding anything here" is really too much touted :) Let's call them recommendations, and let us call the deprecated tags deprecated, when there's actually been voting going on! Noone should be offended by that. -- - Vegard Engen, member of the first RFC1149 implementation team. ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Map Features is a documentation of what is used, not of what someone > thinks should be used. The first paragraph on Map Features says it is "a core recommended feature set and corresponding tags", and to me a recommendation is something that should be followed (at least in the view of its author). Nothing on Map Features says that it is a list of commonly used tags. Instead, it is my understanding that there are a couple of people who decide through voting what to put on Map Features. > > There is a rather objective basis for what is used - the planet file. > There is no objective basis for what "should" be used - everybody has > their own ideas. These things form slowly; someone documents his idea > somewhere, others talk about it on the lists or forums, with time it > gets adopted by many (or not), and there may come a time when you look > at Map Features and say "hm, this highway=gate is barely used any more, > let's ditch it", and that's fine. But this is something you do "ex > post", not "ex ante", or put another way, Map Features is not a > normative page, it is empirical. I am not advocating for anyone to just go and delete features. I am just saying that if there is a process to add features the same process can be used to remove them. I also think it is confusing if two equivalent tags are recommended for the same thing. If by whatever process it is determined that a new wah of tagging gates is recommended the old tag should point to the new one with the indication that the recommendation has changed. > > We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start > putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on > Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and > everyone else. That's why we don't want to go down this road. (And > before anyone asks, a vote in which 0.01% of mappers participate does > not elevate one idea about what is "good" above hundreds of others.) I agree with you here, but voting seems to be the current practice. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi Sergio, > also followed the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/ > Proposed_features#Post-vote_clean-up > wich clearly mentions the "Add entry to Map_Features page." Which is ok (I think you mixed up things by adding the barrier=* under the highway=* section but I fixed that). It doesn't say on that page that you should delete things from the Map Features page. I agree that the mere existence of a "deprecated features" page creates the impression that things should be moved there which is not the case. I will change the Wiki page to make it extra clear. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Matthias Julius wrote: > IMHO, if someone has the authority to put something on Map Features > someone also has the authority to change or remove something or mark > it as deprecated. Let me disagree. You are implying that just because I can add stuff to map features, I can also decide to mark all highway=* as deprecated? I think we should supercede highway=* with path=* because that makes so much more sense. ;-) > Well, whole Map Features is about how people "should" tag things (not > how they "must" tag things). The first paragraph says that you can > tag how you want but this is the core recommended feature set. If > something is not recommended anymore it needs to be marked as such and > eventually removed. Let me disagree here too. It's not about people *should* tag things. It is a collection of tags that many people use to tag specific things often together with a list of applications that can make use of the tags listed. It's not normative, it's a help for me if I want to tag a "gate" and let's me quickly discover how others have tagged gates and it (hopefully ) also let's me discover which renderers make use of that tag. spaetz ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 6:27 PM, Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to >> achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with >> the old tag, what does forcibly removing the old tag actually get you? >> Perhaps a cleaner data model, or a smaller planet dump, but only in >> the extreme case where you actually succeed. And are these worth the >> instant breakage of tools you have nothing to do with? > > Unless these tools are intended to work on only a limited subset of > the data they will break as soon as someone enters some data under the > new tagging scheme. I don't think it is any better if a tool misses > half the gates in an area because they are tagged differently. They don't "break" as such. They just don't get new data. In an actively maintained tool the author will begin to see this as a problem as more and more new data tagged with the new method is added and add the tag to their processing in due course (when they have time/in their normal development/testing/QA schedule). > > If a tool suddenly does not show gates anymore its users can notify > the author. It can go undetected for a long time if a tool just > ignores new gates. Exactly, instant breakage versus no new data -- and experience tells me it doesn't take long for people to ask why their new stuff isn't showing up on X. You either have an unstable, brittle system or one which is a bit out of date, and I know which I prefer. Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
hi this is Sergio Sevillano aka User:Sergionaranja sorry for the inconveniences. I think I have behave correctly though... I wanted to have linear barriers in use, so I found the barrier proposal which was the best option for it, and i promoted it along with other users to be approved as it was kind of stalled. the barrier=gate was included before i started modifying it. (i still think it fits better under barrier) i followed the processes mentioned at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features#Proposal_Status_Process before voting i have called a final rfc in which i explicitly mentioned that gate was involved as i thought this could be tricky... as user circeus (we have worked a lot in this, thanks) pointed out there were many uses for the deprecating values (highway=gate >> 17,000 + uses in Europe according to Tagwatch). we did a lot of documentation also on wiki links for non english users to know those weird types of gates... blah, blah... also followed the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features#Post-vote_clean-up wich clearly mentions the "Add entry to Map_Features page." also found Deprecated_features page. so here i thought a combination of both should be done. i modified highway features so the change has more clear to all, although you are right it don´t belongs there anymore i did not include linear barriers there. *now comes the interpretation* as Frederic says map features should be actual used features. but i favour more an interpretation that map features is recommendation of "how to tag", for uses there is the tagwatch. i have never intended to force others to map or tag in a particular way. i thougt that changing highway=gate to barrier=gate was such straightforward and uncomplicated that the sudden chage was best. taking in account only osmrender and mapnik i thought that those render changes are easy enough to be done quite fast. i didnt take in account any other render neither the editors: JOSM, potlach... (two whip lashes for me) *things I have changed* I have created key:barrier http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Key:barrier to reflect those approved by http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Approved_features/barriers i have modified map features highway template which has been reverted by Frederic to original state also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Deprecated_features which Frederic has already mention more correct uses of deprecation and has leaved the new barrier= recommendation other pages modified: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dgate moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:barrier%3Dgate http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dstile moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:barrier%3Dstile http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dcattle_grid moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:barrier%3Dcattle_grid http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:highway%3Dtoll_booth moved to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Tag:barrier%3Dtoll_booth so now when you search for gate or highway=gate redirects to barrier=gate. this might be changed to original state and create independent barrier=gate so both pages are up at same time? finally, I´am glad all this thoughts have come out, as some changes in the procedures should be done and uploaded. such as proposal_process, approval_process, post_vote_clean_up... deprecation concept cheers, Sergio ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
> I am also thinking about renaming the page altogether. There is simply > no room for the word "deprecated" here. I'm just unsure about the new > name. "Old features"? "Older features"? I dosn't like the world "deprecated" too. But I guess there should be a mechanism, to show the users which tags are replaced by newer ones. >> and no new data has been added with that tag for >> a good while (a year maybe) it is probably safe to convert existing >> occurances to the new scheme and stop supporting the old one, IMHO. > > It is probably never "safe" but at some time one has to move on, we > cannot support old stuff forever. There ist no authority in OSM that has the power to define when "some time" has come to drop support older stuff forever.. I know a company, they have an authority with the power to change everything they would like. But in their newest "Features List" (they call it ISO/EDC 26300), there are features deprecated since tens of years.. Regards, Raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi, Matthias Julius wrote: > IMHO, if someone has the authority to put something on Map Features > someone also has the authority to change or remove something or mark > it as deprecated. Map Features is a documentation of what is used, not of what someone thinks should be used. There is a rather objective basis for what is used - the planet file. There is no objective basis for what "should" be used - everybody has their own ideas. These things form slowly; someone documents his idea somewhere, others talk about it on the lists or forums, with time it gets adopted by many (or not), and there may come a time when you look at Map Features and say "hm, this highway=gate is barely used any more, let's ditch it", and that's fine. But this is something you do "ex post", not "ex ante", or put another way, Map Features is not a normative page, it is empirical. We have no mechanism to divide "good" from "bad" ideas. If you start putting your ideas about what you think is good and "should" be used on Map Features, then I will start putting mine on there as well, and everyone else. That's why we don't want to go down this road. (And before anyone asks, a vote in which 0.01% of mappers participate does not elevate one idea about what is "good" above hundreds of others.) > Well, whole Map Features is about how people "should" tag things No, that's your interpretation. Map features is primarily about what *is* used. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There is no authority in OSM that has the power to mark anything as > deprecated. IMHO, if someone has the authority to put something on Map Features someone also has the authority to change or remove something or mark it as deprecated. > > I have modified the wording on the page "deprecated features" to clearly > say that these are tags for which a replacement is recommended, not > "deprecated tags that should no longer be used". Whoever put that > wording in there, please note that you have *no* authority to tell > people how they "should" tag things! Well, whole Map Features is about how people "should" tag things (not how they "must" tag things). The first paragraph says that you can tag how you want but this is the core recommended feature set. If something is not recommended anymore it needs to be marked as such and eventually removed. > > I am also thinking about renaming the page altogether. There is simply > no room for the word "deprecated" here. I'm just unsure about the new > name. "Old features"? "Older features"? Whether you call those tags "deprecated", "obsolete" or "old" is secondary. As long it is clear that Map Features is only a recommendation it should also be clear that a deprecated feature on there is also only a recommendation as well. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Matthias Julius wrote: > > Anyway, after a tag has been removed from Map Features > > Of course nobody would remove a tag from Map Features as long as it is > still widely used! It seems that User:Sergionaranja was unclear about > this and has accidentally removed highway=gate and others from Map > Features (and indeed documented some barrier=* tags on the Map > Features:highway template where they don't belong!). I have reverted > that edit, and added a proper section for the "barrier" tag. > > > or clearly marked as depreciated > > There is no authority in OSM that has the power to mark anything as > deprecated. > > I have modified the wording on the page "deprecated features" to clearly > say that these are tags for which a replacement is recommended, not > "deprecated tags that should no longer be used". Whoever put that > wording in there, please note that you have *no* authority to tell > people how they "should" tag things! > > I am also thinking about renaming the page altogether. There is simply > no room for the word "deprecated" here. I'm just unsure about the new > name. "Old features"? "Older features"? > Unfashionable Features? > > > and no new data has been added with that tag for > > a good while (a year maybe) it is probably safe to convert existing > > occurances to the new scheme and stop supporting the old one, IMHO. > > It is probably never "safe" but at some time one has to move on, we > cannot support old stuff forever. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > ___ > 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] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi, Matthias Julius wrote: > Anyway, after a tag has been removed from Map Features Of course nobody would remove a tag from Map Features as long as it is still widely used! It seems that User:Sergionaranja was unclear about this and has accidentally removed highway=gate and others from Map Features (and indeed documented some barrier=* tags on the Map Features:highway template where they don't belong!). I have reverted that edit, and added a proper section for the "barrier" tag. > or clearly marked as depreciated There is no authority in OSM that has the power to mark anything as deprecated. I have modified the wording on the page "deprecated features" to clearly say that these are tags for which a replacement is recommended, not "deprecated tags that should no longer be used". Whoever put that wording in there, please note that you have *no* authority to tell people how they "should" tag things! I am also thinking about renaming the page altogether. There is simply no room for the word "deprecated" here. I'm just unsure about the new name. "Old features"? "Older features"? > and no new data has been added with that tag for > a good while (a year maybe) it is probably safe to convert existing > occurances to the new scheme and stop supporting the old one, IMHO. It is probably never "safe" but at some time one has to move on, we cannot support old stuff forever. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
David Earl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If I were a tool author (which I am, of course, but namefinder is not > interested in gates; however the same principle applies to any > "deprecated" tag), for a widely used tag I would feel I needed leave the > old one in indefinitely for backward compatibility in the absence of any > enforceable standards. If you are the author of a popular tool you are the "enforcer". That is if you say "My tool will recognize gates if they are tagged in this way" there is a good chance that people will do exactly that. In the end it is the tool authors who need to decide whether they want to stop supporting some legacy tagging scheme. Anyway, after a tag has been removed from Map Features or clearly marked as depreciated and no new data has been added with that tag for a good while (a year maybe) it is probably safe to convert existing occurances to the new scheme and stop supporting the old one, IMHO. Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On 20/10/2008 18:27, Matthias Julius wrote: > "Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to >> achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with >> the old tag, what does forcibly removing the old tag actually get you? >> Perhaps a cleaner data model, or a smaller planet dump, but only in >> the extreme case where you actually succeed. And are these worth the >> instant breakage of tools you have nothing to do with? > > Unless these tools are intended to work on only a limited subset of > the data they will break as soon as someone enters some data under the > new tagging scheme. I don't think it is any better if a tool misses > half the gates in an area because they are tagged differently. And ditto vice-versa: even if a script is run to update, someone unaware of the change will come along and add the old tag. If I were a tool author (which I am, of course, but namefinder is not interested in gates; however the same principle applies to any "deprecated" tag), for a widely used tag I would feel I needed leave the old one in indefinitely for backward compatibility in the absence of any enforceable standards. David ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
"Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to > achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with > the old tag, what does forcibly removing the old tag actually get you? > Perhaps a cleaner data model, or a smaller planet dump, but only in > the extreme case where you actually succeed. And are these worth the > instant breakage of tools you have nothing to do with? Unless these tools are intended to work on only a limited subset of the data they will break as soon as someone enters some data under the new tagging scheme. I don't think it is any better if a tool misses half the gates in an area because they are tagged differently. If a tool suddenly does not show gates anymore its users can notify the author. It can go undetected for a long time if a tool just ignores new gates. So, I would argue for a grace period after which tools are "expected" to support the new tag, and then a depreciation period after which tools "may" drop support for the old tag. (The quote marks are because OSM is in no position to prescribe to tool authors what to support and Map Features is a recommendation only anyway.) Matthias ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Raphael suggested: > Whats about a clean-up-day? > At a given day, every year/quarter/month, all "deprecating" > tags will > be converted. > With a list about which tags this will would be for the next > clean-up-day. So there is a chance for doing this by hand in > your > region. I'm still not convinced about deprecating tags in general, but my thoughts (for what they're worth) are: Update Map Features. At some point this will result in an updated set of maplint tests. At some point the [EMAIL PROTECTED] clients will update to use these new tests. At some point tiles (with gates) will probably be rerendered, highlighting items "not in map features" if the maplint information layer is shown. Someone may investigate what isn't in map features in an area and update the tagging to the "new" version. If so, then cleaning up will be an ongoing task. Before then of course the main tools used for tagging will probably need any shortcuts for adding gates (I added a couple yesterday using JOSM, for example) to be updated. I didn't look to see what tags it used, or whether Map Features had changed since I last added any. I'm a bit worried that when it comes to scripts there is the prospect of unintentional changes as well as the intended ones, although that seems less likely in this instance as it seems a straight forward switch. Ed ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 2:02 PM, Raphael Studer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > >>> sergio sevillano wrote: the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs to barrier *barrier=gate * shall we run a script to do this? >>> >>> No, because this would break existing rendering. First make sure the new >>> tag is supported by the majority of renderers - otherwise it will look >>> to people as if the gates had been removed because they're suddenly not >>> on the map any more. >> >> And remember that "renderers" aren't just the main ones that show map >> tiles, there's lots of other ones for mobile devices including e.g. >> mkgmap, which may or may not need to be modified. Also any editor >> presets (all the editors, not just JOSM), and of course the multitude >> of routing programs. > > When waiting till the majority of the software (using osm data) > changed to the new tags, will there ever be a chance to run a convert > script? Not just for the barrier tag, for any tag. IMOH there will > never be a chance. > There are still about 280 class=highway in germany.. (says the > tagwatch.dstoecker.eu). > >> Who dislikes the concept of "deprecating" tags almost as much as >> people automatically changing thousands of tags two days after a >> self-selected cabal think that the voting system is the be all and end >> all... > > Whats about a clean-up-day? > At a given day, every year/quarter/month, all "deprecating" tags will > be converted. > With a list about which tags this will would be for the next > clean-up-day. So there is a chance for doing this by hand in your > region. > I suspect the vast majority of these class=highway ways will fall into one of these two categories: 1) The way also has a highway tag 2) There will be a way either directly on top, or running in a vaguely overlapping way, which has highway tags. (quite possibly with a FIXME=previously unwayed segment.. or whatever the tag is). So any automatic script is going to be either unnecessary, or harmful (you'll end up with two roads instead of just one). In "obvious" "deprecation" like this I think you're better off writing a tool to find them, and flag them for people to go have a look at. The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with the old tag, what does forcibly removing the old tag actually get you? Perhaps a cleaner data model, or a smaller planet dump, but only in the extreme case where you actually succeed. And are these worth the instant breakage of tools you have nothing to do with? Dave ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi, >> sergio sevillano wrote: >>> the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs >>> to barrier >>> *barrier=gate * >>> >>> shall we run a script to do this? >> >> No, because this would break existing rendering. First make sure the new >> tag is supported by the majority of renderers - otherwise it will look >> to people as if the gates had been removed because they're suddenly not >> on the map any more. > > And remember that "renderers" aren't just the main ones that show map > tiles, there's lots of other ones for mobile devices including e.g. > mkgmap, which may or may not need to be modified. Also any editor > presets (all the editors, not just JOSM), and of course the multitude > of routing programs. When waiting till the majority of the software (using osm data) changed to the new tags, will there ever be a chance to run a convert script? Not just for the barrier tag, for any tag. IMOH there will never be a chance. There are still about 280 class=highway in germany.. (says the tagwatch.dstoecker.eu). > Who dislikes the concept of "deprecating" tags almost as much as > people automatically changing thousands of tags two days after a > self-selected cabal think that the voting system is the be all and end > all... Whats about a clean-up-day? At a given day, every year/quarter/month, all "deprecating" tags will be converted. With a list about which tags this will would be for the next clean-up-day. So there is a chance for doing this by hand in your region. Regards, raphael ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:49 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > sergio sevillano wrote: >> the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs >> to barrier >> *barrier=gate * >> >> shall we run a script to do this? > > No, because this would break existing rendering. First make sure the new > tag is supported by the majority of renderers - otherwise it will look > to people as if the gates had been removed because they're suddenly not > on the map any more. And remember that "renderers" aren't just the main ones that show map tiles, there's lots of other ones for mobile devices including e.g. mkgmap, which may or may not need to be modified. Also any editor presets (all the editors, not just JOSM), and of course the multitude of routing programs. Please remember that not all users of OSM data are internal to the project any more, so external users of the data may not be constantly working on keeping their tag sets up to date. So allow a long overlap period. It should also be that the vast majority of new tags are using the new scheme, since it doesn't matter how many people "vote" on proposals, there's literally orders of magnitude more people actually inputting data and it's they who are more important when deciding which tags to "deprecate". Cheers, Andy Who dislikes the concept of "deprecating" tags almost as much as people automatically changing thousands of tags two days after a self-selected cabal think that the voting system is the be all and end all... ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 10:49:32PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: > sergio sevillano wrote: > > the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs > > to barrier > > *barrier=gate * > > > > shall we run a script to do this? > > No, because this would break existing rendering. First make sure the new > tag is supported by the majority of renderers - otherwise it will look > to people as if the gates had been removed because they're suddenly not > on the map any more. barrier=gate (and some other barrier=*) is supported by Osmarender (and has been for some time before the voting began on the barrier=* proposal), but not currently by Mapnik. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Re: [OSM-talk] barrier=gate, run a script?
Hi, sergio sevillano wrote: > the key:barrier has been approved and thus the highway=gate now belongs > to barrier > *barrier=gate * > > shall we run a script to do this? No, because this would break existing rendering. First make sure the new tag is supported by the majority of renderers - otherwise it will look to people as if the gates had been removed because they're suddenly not on the map any more. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
