Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Jason Cunningham]

And on another slight different tangent, I've noticed a lot of 'implied
surfaces' in both versions
eg "*Please note*: omitting the
surface
=* tag implies it *is unpaved"*

What's the background for suggesting not providing a surface tag will
result in an implied surface. I feel a missing surface tag 'implies' that
the surface tag is missing, and nothing more.

Jason,
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] Designation: should we begin using prefixes

[Jason Cunningham]

I believe these tags should contain something along the lines of 'uk',
'sco' etc. Not because I'd wish the prefix to show the region, but because
the designations are unique and need I believe the tags need to be unique.
So for an Area of Outstanding Beauty resulting from UK created legislation
I'd use designation=UK_AONB The aim is to create an unique name.
Despite that fact AONB don't occur in Scotland the name still is unique.

But... I don't see anything wrong with a tag holding location info in
situations like these, especially if it may make it easier for people to
interact with the data. I agree you strictly don't need it but for many it
will reduce the amount of actions needed to engage with the data.
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Robert Norris]

On a slightly different tangent, how if at all do we have have timed 
restrictions on access types?

As the other day I was walking around the Ridgeway:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=51.422242618282993&lon=-1.8314579782714844&zoom=15&layers=B000FTF

1. Some byways have permissions of no motorised vehicles in 'winter' (30th Oct 
to 30th Apr)
2. ATM in OSM it's listed as designation = BOAT

For the moment I'll probably just add it as some form of note description.




Be Seeing You - Rob.
If at first you don't succeed,
then skydiving isn't for you.



  
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Stephen Colebourne]

As a relatively new mapper, two things stand out to me.

1) What Potlatch offers will be used. That means
h=footway/cycleway/bridleway/track will be used over h=path

2) The footway/cycleway/bridleway classification scheme makes perfect
sense to me. Any path I see I in town I can easily classify into one
of the three - most are footways, some are dedicated cycleways, and on
somewhere like Wimbledon Common there is a dedicated bridleway. Thus
h=path is something I would perceive as a fallback.

Note that at no point am I caring about designated rights of way. That
is a much more complex thing to determine it would seem, and not
something that a casual or new mapper would be bothered by.

Tag the broad view of what you see. The PROW or other stuff is
*detail*. Let normal mappers add the basic
footway/cycleway/bridleway/track, and expert mappers add the detail
later.

Stephen


On 7 May 2012 13:10, Chris Hill  wrote:
> On 07/05/12 10:34, Jonathan Harley wrote:
>>
>> On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:
>>>
>>> Andy Street  writes:
>>>
 On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
 I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path,
 designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the
 path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be
 pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their
 particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a
 cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an
 explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value.
>>>
>>> As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if
>>> there was a single set of tags worldwide.  In my case the consumer of
>>> the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/).
>>
>>
>> That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised for
>> mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict?
>>
>>> My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we
>>> don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide.  The
>>> idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and
>>> customs is impractical.  There are literally hundreds of regions that
>>> might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by
>>> a geographical region and list of rules.  Each consumer of data then
>>> needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules.
>>
>>
>> No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care about
>> the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And I think that
>> would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to conform to a rigid
>> tagging system.
>>
>> I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I think
>> attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors is right up
>> there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due to its simplicity
>> and informality.
>>
>>> With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and
>>> it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it.  With a
>>> pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search
>>> through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it,
>>> search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes
>>> belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor.
>>>
>>> One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is
>>> created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but
>>> used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers.
>>> Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of
>>> times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity
>>> should be in the writing side and not the reading side.
>>
>>
>> I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. Besides,
>> rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less valuable than
>> OSM contributor brain power.
>>
>> Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use "raw" OSM data. Someone
>> could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have "normalised" rights of way
>> information, and publish those files for the benefit of that subset of
>> consumers who happen to care about rights of way being consistent around the
>> world. I think that's a much better way to go than laying down rigid rules
>> for mappers, or running bots that try to bash OSM into the shape needed by a
>> particular consumer.
>>
> + 1
>
> Mappers are far too precious to lose by making tagging schemes that suit
> data consumers and not mappers. OSM has grown partly because free tagging
> has allowed the base of tags to grow as people who are interested in a
> subject add tags that suit that object. The consensus over tagging is pretty
> good, just by good sense and a common purpose.
>
> I am certainly in favour of using tags that everyone agrees with, but
> certainly not a 

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Chris Hill]

On 07/05/12 10:34, Jonathan Harley wrote:

On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:

Andy Street  writes:


On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path,
designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the
path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be
pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their
particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a
cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe 
without an

explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value.

As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if
there was a single set of tags worldwide.  In my case the consumer of
the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/).


That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised 
for mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict?



My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we
don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide.  The
idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and
customs is impractical.  There are literally hundreds of regions that
might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by
a geographical region and list of rules.  Each consumer of data then
needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules.


No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care 
about the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And 
I think that would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to 
conform to a rigid tagging system.


I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I 
think attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors 
is right up there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due 
to its simplicity and informality.



With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and
it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it.  With a
pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search
through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it,
search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes
belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor.

One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is
created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but
used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers.
Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of
times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity
should be in the writing side and not the reading side.


I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. 
Besides, rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less 
valuable than OSM contributor brain power.


Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use "raw" OSM data. 
Someone could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have "normalised" 
rights of way information, and publish those files for the benefit of 
that subset of consumers who happen to care about rights of way being 
consistent around the world. I think that's a much better way to go 
than laying down rigid rules for mappers, or running bots that try to 
bash OSM into the shape needed by a particular consumer.



+ 1

Mappers are far too precious to lose by making tagging schemes that suit 
data consumers and not mappers. OSM has grown partly because free 
tagging has allowed the base of tags to grow as people who are 
interested in a subject add tags that suit that object. The consensus 
over tagging is pretty good, just by good sense and a common purpose.


I am certainly in favour of using tags that everyone agrees with, but 
certainly not a restricted list whether that is driven by data 
consumers, some committee or wiki editors. Even worse are bots or mass 
edits that flatten diversity from the database in the name of 
conformity. I view changing someone's carefully chosen tag (not just 
typos) to something else as vandalism.


--
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] UK Rights of Way - WikiProject

[Jonathan Harley]

On 06/05/12 17:22, Andrew M. Bishop wrote:

Andy Street  writes:


On Fri, 2012-05-04 at 14:32 +0100, Andrew Chadwick wrote:
I'd agree that generic consumers will struggle with highway=path,
designation=* but that is a wider OSM issue and not limited to the
path/footway, etc. debate. Anyone using OSM data should be
pre-processing it to take into account local laws/customs and their
particular use case. For example, you are probably going to come a
cropper if you go around assuming that roads across the globe without an
explicit maxspeed tag all have the same default value.

As the author of a consumer of OSM data I for one would prefer it if
there was a single set of tags worldwide.  In my case the consumer of
the data is Routino a router for OSM data (http://www.routino.org/).


That makes sense - but the question is, should tagging be optimised for 
mappers/map editors, or for map consumers, if those things conflict?



My personal opinion is that the biggest risk to OSM's future is if we
don't agree on a subset of tagging rules to be used worldwide.  The
idea that there could be a pre-processor to handle local laws and
customs is impractical.  There are literally hundreds of regions that
might use their own tagging rules each of which needs to be defined by
a geographical region and list of rules.  Each consumer of data then
needs to implement the full set of pre-processor rules.


No; only consumers of data who want worldwide coverage (and who care 
about the tags that vary around the world) would have to do that. And I 
think that would still be easier than getting mappers worldwide to 
conform to a rigid tagging system.


I'm not sure what I think is the biggest risk to OSM's future but I 
think attempting to impose an unwieldy system of tags on contributors is 
right up there. I think a large part of OSM's success so far is due to 
its simplicity and informality.



With a single set of rules a way can be taken from an OSM XML file and
it will be immediately apparent who is permitted to use it.  With a
pre-processor it is necessary to take the way from the file, search
through the whole file to find the nodes that are referenced by it,
search through all defined regions to determine which one the nodes
belong to and then apply the selected pre-processor.

One thing that we shouldn't lose sight of is that each item in OSM is
created once and edited a few times by a small number of editors but
used many hundreds of time each day by many dozens of data consumers.
Since the number of times the data is read far exceeds the number of
times the data is written (by orders of magnitude) the complexity
should be in the writing side and not the reading side.


I disagree. Consumers of OSM data should embrace Postel's Law. Besides, 
rule-based processing is just CPU cycles. Those are far less valuable 
than OSM contributor brain power.


Also, there's no reason data consumers have to use "raw" OSM data. 
Someone could post-process OSM to produce dumps that have "normalised" 
rights of way information, and publish those files for the benefit of 
that subset of consumers who happen to care about rights of way being 
consistent around the world. I think that's a much better way to go than 
laying down rigid rules for mappers, or running bots that try to bash 
OSM into the shape needed by a particular consumer.



Jonathan.

--
Dr Jonathan Harley   :Managing Director:   SpiffyMap Ltd

m...@spiffymap.com  Phone: 0845 313 8457 www.spiffymap.com
The Venture Centre, Sir William Lyons Road, Coventry CV4 7EZ, UK


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb