Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Sat, 15/8/09, James Livingston wrote: > I see it as exactly the same thing, you're tagging it so > that it works > better with certain pieces of software, due to that making > incorrect > assumptions. Although it may practically do so in some > parts of > europe, highway=residential doesn't imply > access=destination. This isn't an incorrect assumption problem, this is a problem with the information on the main map features page being ambiguous enough that you can take it either way. Who ever wrote the Australia Tagging Guidelines assumed one thing and other people have assumed another and both are correct. > We could fix the routing software, or the conversion from > OSM data to > whatever format the router uses so that it doesn't treat > them as such. Yes but the bigger issue is at present people have interrupted things differently leaving OSM data in an inconsistent state which is bad in general. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
On 14/08/2009, at 7:26 PM, John Smith wrote: > The problem is some/all routing software doesn't treat residential > as through roads, but do treat unclassified as through roads. > > Effectively highway=residential means highway=[residential| > unclassified] and access=destination. > > I realise we're not supposed to tag for the renderer, but this isn't > quite the same thing I see it as exactly the same thing, you're tagging it so that it works better with certain pieces of software, due to that making incorrect assumptions. Although it may practically do so in some parts of europe, highway=residential doesn't imply access=destination. > as they've coded to a specific definition of residential/ > unclassified that they interrupted it as. We can either align > ourselves with this definition or have routing go screwy on us. We could fix the routing software, or the conversion from OSM data to whatever format the router uses so that it doesn't treat them as such. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Fri, 14/8/09, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: > then we could have an editing fight, and I'm not going to > do that I ended up reverting the sections on residential/unclassified for the same reason. > the urban use notice has changed considerably by the > placing of unclassified > above residential when we were using them as of equal > value The problem is some/all routing software doesn't treat residential as through roads, but do treat unclassified as through roads. Effectively highway=residential means highway=[residential|unclassified] and access=destination. I realise we're not supposed to tag for the renderer, but this isn't quite the same thing, as they've coded to a specific definition of residential/unclassified that they interrupted it as. We can either align ourselves with this definition or have routing go screwy on us. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009, John Smith wrote: > Has what I changed it to put it much out of line with it's current usage, > rural roads are tagged generally unclassified, I don't think they should be > tagged as residential except in a few exceptions such as a housing develop > that isn't near a town. > > > so could you revert that please John? > > Unlike the map data anyone can revert a change. then we could have an editing fight, and I'm not going to do that the urban use notice has changed considerably by the placing of unclassified above residential when we were using them as of equal value the rural one now mentions the surface, which I wouldn't mention as part of the definition -- BOFH excuse #25: Decreasing electron flux ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, BlueMM wrote: > We have had the previous definition up on the Au tagging > page for a long time, I > know all my mapping has been based on that. I find it weird > that someone brings > up on the mailing list saying that the German's are tagging > like X (contary to > the wiki def), no one seems to comment much on the list, > then the tagging > guidelines are changed while we have thousands/millions? of > ways mapped the > previous way!! I don't think I changed the meaning at all, and I don't think anything already tagged has to change as a result of rewording. How many rural roads did you tag as residential for example? Also the Australian Tagging Guidelines shouldn't take precedent over the main mapping features, it should be a translation of the mapping features into Australian english. > Also I agree with Liz over the "Non-existant streets" > issue, how can we possibly > put anything on the map that mentions copyright sources, by > definition it has to > be copyright. I just had a look at the section "What I'm pretty sure Liz wasn't talking about that section. > seems to say never copy copyrighted maps (good) and a list > of things that would > be done normally as part of "map what's on the ground". I > see these as redundant If it's so redundant why was so many people commenting on this list about what to do and no one seemed to have a silver bullet in terms of an answer, while it might seem redundant when you read it what if you hadn't? ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
--- On Thu, 13/8/09, Liz wrote: > Rather than change now, which doesn't > represent what we have on the map > I was intending to hold changes until something came out of > the general > discussion > which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments > and the real > reasons for dispute Well this is what I was asking comments for the other day and it didn't really get discussed properly. Has what I changed it to put it much out of line with it's current usage, rural roads are tagged generally unclassified, I don't think they should be tagged as residential except in a few exceptions such as a housing develop that isn't near a town. > so could you revert that please John? Unlike the map data anyone can revert a change. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 00:27:38 + (UTC) BlueMM wrote: > Liz writes: > > Rather than change now, which doesn't represent what we have on the map > > I was intending to hold changes until something came out of the general > > discussion which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments and > > the real reasons for dispute > > > > so could you revert that please John? > > I second that. Third for that. -- Ross Scanlon ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Australian_Road_Tagging - unclassified
Liz writes: > Rather than change now, which doesn't represent what we have on the map > I was intending to hold changes until something came out of the general > discussion which is finally settling down to analysis of the arguments and > the real reasons for dispute > > so could you revert that please John? I second that. I know it's a wiki, and we have all seen arbitrary changes made to it by users who think they are making changes for the better (it seems a lot of the early mappers from the Talk mailing list think the wiki is a waste of time for this very reason). We have had the previous definition up on the Au tagging page for a long time, I know all my mapping has been based on that. I find it weird that someone brings up on the mailing list saying that the German's are tagging like X (contary to the wiki def), no one seems to comment much on the list, then the tagging guidelines are changed while we have thousands/millions? of ways mapped the previous way!! I'd expect lots of discussion/time & consensus from more that a few usuals for such a massive change. There are a lot of Au mappers that are very active that don't comment or even follow the Au mailing list (I know I didn't for the first year, the Au list didn't seem too active, unlike now where it is going off tap). Also I agree with Liz over the "Non-existant streets" issue, how can we possibly put anything on the map that mentions copyright sources, by definition it has to be copyright. I just had a look at the section "What happens if another map says a road exists but isn't really there?" John added to the Au guidelines page. It seems to say never copy copyrighted maps (good) and a list of things that would be done normally as part of "map what's on the ground". I see these as redundant as they are mentioned elsewhere, therefore I think it should be reverted. I'm not a big fan of the implication to look at other copyrighted maps as reference, I think writing that down could lead us down a very grey path. Of course, my opinions won't keep me warm at night :-) BlueMM ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
