On 24 Apr 2008, at 13:23, Steve Hill wrote:
> But in common software, do the objects have an explicit type? In
> OpenStreetMap they do not - the type is determined by a bunch of
> arbitrary
> tags, for which you need background knowledge of which tags define the
> object type and which just def
> > I like to know why I'm doing something, and dislike being told "because".
> > So far you've not actually come up with anything except statements of
> > belief, and a few potential non-uses.
> >
>
> I'm in the same boat - I think the flat namespace is a really really bad
> idea and yet no one h
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> a Good Thing, but you can't tell me why, and you ignore my reasons why not.
Nope, I told you why, as did other people.
> This is the problem dude, you don't get why you're doing it.
I understand exactly why I'm doing it.
> I like to know why I'm doing
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>
> > It would probably have a tag like man_made=fishpond. I don't know
> > there's a tagging schema for that.
> >
>
> How did you know that the man_made tag defined the context?
>
O
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> It would probably have a tag like man_made=fishpond. I don't know
> there's a tagging schema for that.
How did you know that the man_made tag defined the context?
> Seriously, I've had enough of this.
That's fine, but I'm afraid you haven't convinced me
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>
> > And if the occupancy is on a fish pond then it likely does
> >
>
> How do you know it's a fish pond?
It would probably have a tag like man_made=fishpond. I don't know
there's a
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> And if the occupancy is on a fish pond then it likely does
How do you know it's a fish pond? There is no tag that unambiguously
identifies the type of object it is. Instead there is a whole load of
tags to identify the object, and you have to have a l
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>
>
> > I can't claim to have the right answer, but I will state that it is not
> > common in geographic software to have namespaced attributes: in general,
> > when this is the
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
>
>
> > either you're a human in which case most of the time you'll
> > engage your brain and figure out what makes sense... or you're a
> > computer in which case some nice human has p
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> It almost sounds like the proposal is to use namespaces in place of a
> 'type' property on the object... which I personally think would be a
> better way to go than to namespace every tag...
The idea is to make the context of the tag much more obv
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 01:23:32PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
>
> >I can't claim to have the right answer, but I will state that it is not
> >common in geographic software to have namespaced attributes: in general,
> >when this is the case, it is a n
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
> I can't claim to have the right answer, but I will state that it is not
> common in geographic software to have namespaced attributes: in general,
> when this is the case, it is a namespace based only on the object type
> which has a specific schem
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:51:13PM +0100, Steve Hill wrote:
> > piste:lift:occupancy -- wtf? this can only ever happen on a piste:lift
> > right? there is absolutely zero point in this tag.. call it occupancy
> > -- the result is 100% identical. This is purely namespace wanking for
> > the sake of
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Dave Stubbs wrote:
> either you're a human in which case most of the time you'll
> engage your brain and figure out what makes sense... or you're a
> computer in which case some nice human has programmed you with the
> relevant domain knowledge, so you know that highway=climbi
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Ari Torhamo wrote:
>
> > on the other hand because some of the argumenting has been based on
> > how the use of namespaces would affect the inexperienced OSM:ers - like
> > me.
>
> Thanks for your inpu
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2008, at 16:07, Andy Allan wrote:
>
> > I can say from my experience of teaching IT concepts to very smart
> > people (i.e. until recently I was an IT support manager at a large
> > uni) that this namespacing
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are established conventions for both flat tagging schemes and
> namespacing - see the likes of the piste proposal, the lighthouses proposal,
> etc.
Namespacing every tag is not an established convention, no matter how
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Ari Torhamo wrote:
> on the other hand because some of the argumenting has been based on
> how the use of namespaces would affect the inexperienced OSM:ers - like
> me.
Thanks for your input - you're *exactly* the sort of person we need to
hear from, rather than reasoning on
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> You are taking what you believe to be true, and applying it to
> everyone else.
The same can be said for both sides of this discussion.
> If you think there is no clear winner, then shoudn't the established
> conventions should take precendence?
There ar
Hello,
I started to follow this thread for a while ago. I became interested on
the other hand because there seems to be two very different views (or
points of view) from people, who apparently know the subject very well,
and on the other hand because some of the argumenting has been based on
how t
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Chris Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 23 Apr 2008, at 16:07, Andy Allan wrote:
>
> > I can say from my experience of teaching IT concepts to very smart
> > people (i.e. until recently I was an IT support manager at a large
> > uni) that this namespacing stu
On 23 Apr 2008, at 16:07, Andy Allan wrote:
> I can say from my experience of teaching IT concepts to very smart
> people (i.e. until recently I was an IT support manager at a large
> uni) that this namespacing stuff is a step too far for most people. My
> experience introducing other people to O
> I can say from my experience of teaching IT concepts to very smart
> people (i.e. until recently I was an IT support manager at a large
> uni) that this namespacing stuff is a step too far for most people.
I can say from my experience that, as one of those sort of people, trying
to learn all abo
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is something I truely can't understand
> - I would think that anyone would find more meaningful and non-conflicting
> tag names to be easier, not more difficult to use.
You are taking what you believe to be true, and ap
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> You are clearly unwilling to consider the downsides of your
> namespacing proposals, beyond pure technical matters
I am trying to think about all aspects of the proposals. However, so far
the only argument against them seems to be that namespaced tag nam
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm aware the issue is contentious, but no one has said anything to
> convince me that namespacing isn't a good thing (certainly nothing showing
> why it is a bad thing).
You are clearly unwilling to consider the downsid
Karl Newman wrote:
> As someone else aptly put it earlier: OSM is about being machine-readable,
> otherwise it might as well be OpenAerialMap.
Yes and no. It has to be machine-readable, true, but our USP is our
active mapper userbase. So the design, accepting that it facilitates
both, should
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:10 AM, Cartinus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 14:45:17 Steve Hill wrote:
> > The problem is that the context isn't clear since there is no designated
> > "context" tag - i.e. if you have a way tagged with highway=climbing and
> > rock=limestone,
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Cartinus wrote:
> A machine wouldn't know without a set of rules or a hierarchy.
Isn't part of the point of OSM to produce a data set that _is_ machine
readable? I consider lack of machine readability to be a real problem.
> plus it is filled with lots of "background" know
On Wednesday 23 April 2008 14:45:17 Steve Hill wrote:
> The problem is that the context isn't clear since there is no designated
> "context" tag - i.e. if you have a way tagged with highway=climbing and
> rock=limestone, is the context provided by the highway tag or the rock
> tag?
A machine would
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> As I think AndyA pointed out you are not normally looking at a tag out of
> context, e.g. on its own without any of the other tags applying to the same
> feature.
The problem is that the context isn't clear since there is no designated
"co
Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sent: 23 April 2008 1:08 PM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder)
>Cc: 'OJ W'; 'OSM Talk'
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
>
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>
&g
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> Because it was difficult for the "layman freeform tagger contributor" to
> decide what the root "class" should be, for instance is it class=waterway or
> class=river.
I think I'd be inclined to try and make things a bit hiararchical - e.g.
Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sent: 23 April 2008 11:52 AM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder)
>Cc: 'OJ W'; 'OSM Talk'
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
>
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>
>
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> I'll guess we will agree to disagree then. If it works for you ane the other
> climbers amongst the contributors then of course you can do what works for
> you :-)
I don't think any other climbers have voiced an interest in tagging routes
Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sent: 23 April 2008 11:37 AM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder)
>Cc: 'OJ W'; 'OSM Talk'
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
>
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>
>
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> The point has been made by others that the namespace here is unnecessary. We
> know what length= means here so the climbing namespace is superfluous
> because what you are tagging is a climbing route.
I'm aware the issue is contentious, but
Steve Hill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Sent: 23 April 2008 10:03 AM
>To: Andy Robinson (blackadder)
>Cc: 'OJ W'; 'OSM Talk'
>Subject: RE: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
>
>On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
>
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008, Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> For a climbing route it's normally the distance of assent that is of
> interest is it not and I guess for most traditional climbing routes this is
> known? Much easier to state the length of the route than the top and bottom
> elevations? Ac
Andy Robinson (blackadder) schrieb:
> For a climbing route it's normally the distance of assent that is of
> interest is it not and I guess for most traditional climbing routes this is
> known? Much easier to state the length of the route than the top and bottom
> elevations? Accepted that you migh
Steve Hill wrote:
>Sent: 22 April 2008 12:06 PM
>To: OJ W
>Cc: OSM Talk
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tagging climbing routes and scrambles
>
>On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, OJ W wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the ele=x
>> m tag would be useful here - so that if someone actually trie
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, OJ W wrote:
> Perhaps the ele=x
> m tag would be useful here - so that if someone actually tries creating a 3D
> map of a crag they'll have data to work with...
I'm trying to avoid requiring the ele tag because elevation data is hard
to get (accurately). However, if someone
Not related to the namespace discussion, but the idea of cliff materials is
interesting. Something I found when I attempted to tag dirt cliffs,
ravines, etc...
How about this one, which uses only existing tags?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Proposed_features/Cliff_surface
On Fri, Ap
That makes sense -- the top and bottom of a climbing route should be two
nodes separated by a way which indicates that it's fairly difficult to
travel between the two. On our 2D map they'll be nearly on top of each
other, which is correct but a bit difficult to visualise. Perhaps the ele=x
m tag
On Saturday, 19 April 2008 11:46:52 +1200,
Robin Paulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2008/4/18 Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > structure=pole
> > > highway=bus_stop
> > > amenity=post_box
> >
> > Ok, but you still have a potential conflict here. Hypothetically, you
> > could have a
Tom Hughes wrote:
> Because the name tag is always the name of an object, regardless of
> what that object is (the amenity=pub tells you what sort of object it
> is in this case). It is clear to everybody that a name tag is going
> to tell you the name of something without having to know anything
2008/4/18 Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > structure=pole
> > highway=bus_stop
> > amenity=post_box
> >
>
> Ok, but you still have a potential conflict here. Hypothetically, you
> could have a "timetable" tag which applies to both a bus stop (tells you
> when busses arrive) and a post box (whe
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, I would prefer to see everything namespaced, such as
> amenity:pub:name or pub:name.
Hmm. In that case, I'm not sure we'll see eye to eye on this at any point!
Cheers,
Andy
__
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ah, I see the problem. You are taking a tag away from it's context,
> > and then complaining that the tag has no context on its own. Only
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> Ah, I see the problem. You are taking a tag away from it's context,
> and then complaining that the tag has no context on its own. Only part
> of your argument is based around conflicts, but the rest seems to be
> context.
Yes, it's a bit of both - I think
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andy Allan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ah, I see the problem. You are taking a tag away from it's context,
> and then complaining that the tag has no context on its own. Only part
> of your argument is based around conflicts, but the rest seems to be
> conte
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
>
>
> > And full of frigging namespaces.
> >
>
> Yes - I consider this a Good Thing.
Then we'll need to do our best to persuade each other :-) !
>
> > british_trad = VS
> > british_tech
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Robin Paulson wrote:
> structure=pole
> highway=bus_stop
> amenity=post_box
Ok, but you still have a potential conflict here. Hypothetically, you
could have a "timetable" tag which applies to both a bus stop (tells you
when busses arrive) and a post box (when is the post c
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Nick wrote:
> It's very difficult to know what to do with climbing routes without
> truly 3-dimensional mapping - that said your suggestion sounds feasible.
Having thought more about this, my proposal has a problem: There is no way
to show the difference between a path leadi
2008/4/18 Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I simply don't see namespaces as necessary. In this case I'd draw the
> > building and label it as a supermarket, then add a node for the post
> office.
>
> This seems a very messy solution to me.
>
>
> > The building is a supermarket, the post off
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
> I simply don't see namespaces as necessary. In this case I'd draw the
> building and label it as a supermarket, then add a node for the post office.
This seems a very messy solution to me.
> The building is a supermarket, the post office is only part of
Steve Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
>
>> Yes, because tags are applied to a node or a way and collectively the
>> tags make sense for that node or way.
>
> What if an object needs to be tagged with multiple tags? I can think
> of various reasons for doing this. For exampl
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
> Yes, because tags are applied to a node or a way and collectively the
> tags make sense for that node or way.
What if an object needs to be tagged with multiple tags? I can think of
various reasons for doing this. For example, a building might contain
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
>
> > The only person likely to tag climbing routes is someone who
> > understands climbing routes ;-)
>
> What about someone just trying to interpret the data stored in OSM's
> database? It should be obvious what the data is, without having to start
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Chris Hill wrote:
> The only person likely to tag climbing routes is someone who
> understands climbing routes ;-)
What about someone just trying to interpret the data stored in OSM's
database? It should be obvious what the data is, without having to start
looking stuff u
> But makes it less obvious to people who don't have a good knowledge of
> climbing as to what the tags mean. If you have "climbing:grade:french" it
> is obvious to *everyone* that this is some kind of grade for climbing -
> a tag called "french" really does fall into the non-obvious category.
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andy Allan wrote:
> And full of frigging namespaces.
Yes - I consider this a Good Thing.
> Please, please don't let the stupid Piste namespacing infect your
> brain and make you wander round with a namespace-hammer looking for
> new tagging-nails.
I'm afraid I consider the
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Nick wrote:
>
> > It's worth noting that in terms of climbing grades there are plenty of
> > different systems worldwide to allow for:
>
> Yes, I was considering having a tag for each. e.g.:
> climbin
On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Nick wrote:
> It's worth noting that in terms of climbing grades there are plenty of
> different systems worldwide to allow for:
Yes, I was considering having a tag for each. e.g.:
climbing:grade:british:adjectival=VS
climbing:grade:british:technical=5b
climbing:grade:french
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>There isn't much guidance on how the sport=climbing tag should be used
>when dealing with outdoor features. What exactly should be tagged with
>sport=climbing? Possibilities include:
>
> * The crag (probably a node, or maybe
There isn't much guidance on how the sport=climbing tag should be used
when dealing with outdoor features. What exactly should be tagged with
sport=climbing? Possibilities include:
* The crag (probably a node, or maybe a way following a cliff, or an
area)
* The start locations of individua
66 matches
Mail list logo
