> > What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? >> I asked that already). >> > > The question does not make sense. Of course the end that is not > connected to another highway is the dead-end. If the way should not be > connected to anything on either side it will already be flagged as a > connectivity error. > I think you missed André's point. If a way has two dead-ends: one of which is an actual dead-end, and another which is a connectivity error... then the connectivity error is missed because noexit=yes was used. Fortunately this doesn't actually happen because *noexit=yes on ways are ignored* on validators like JOSM.
I think we all agree that tagging a way with noexit=yes isn't exactly an error, but it has disadvantages (other were cited in this thread) and it shouldn't be recommended on the wiki. 2014-04-13 16:20 GMT-03:00 Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>: > Hi, > > On 10.04.2014 18:08, André Pirard wrote: > > In other words, 40% tags (on ways) can't be wrong. But the problem is > > that 99.+% of these correct tags are mistakes and shouldn't even exist > > because they do not represent "ways ending near another way", which are > > the targets of noexit=yes, but normal dead ends needing no other > tagging. > > I don't see a problem in tagging a normal dead-end with "noexit=yes". It > doesn't hurt, and adds information (namely that this isn't just a bit > where I had no time to continue tracing, but a proper "end"). I don't do > it myself but I'll certainly not make an effort to flag this as "error" > and get my knickers in a twist about it. > > > What, in tagging a way, indicates on which end of it is the dead end? > > (I asked that already). > > The question does not make sense. Of course the end that is not > connected to another highway is the dead-end. If the way should not be > connected to anything on either side it will already be flagged as a > connectivity error. > > > What does happen when the way is split or unsplit? > > Logically, if you merge a dead-end with a non-dead-end, the result will > still be a dead-end. If you split a dead-end then one part won't be a > dead-end and the other will - however, having a way tagged noexit=yes > which has no dangling ends doesn't seem to be a drastic error to me. > > > In fact, is it "the way" or is it "the highway"? Just a segment or more > > and up to where? > > I think you should take a deep breath and calm down. > > The bit that is "typical OSM" about this is that people can't cope with > a bit of fuzziness and then start endless discussions, and in the end > claim that OSM is doomed, lacks quality, will never work, is ruled by > idiots, whatever. > > > I know who is right: our government who say that OSM is not > > [necessarily, to remain civil] up to the quality they expect for data. I > > fear that this does not favor obtaining data from them. > > Well who knows if we even want your government's data. Maybe it lacks > the qualities we are looking for. > > > I was enthusiastic, but I now believe less and less in OSM. > > Maybe you misunderstood OSM and you are slowly learning what it is, and > what it is not. > > > Please let us ask Osmose to mark as an error any nooexit=yes that is > > either not on a node or not close to another way. We could report that > > action to that government and others as an example that we at least try > > to put our data right. > > I don't think that we have to prove to any government that we are > "trying to put right" something that is hardly a problem. In fact, > spending brainpower and time on such a trivial issue would be quite a > misallocation of resources. > > > Now what about some more fun? Flood tagging noexit=no in the middle of > > every street? That wouldn't make 40% but 100% and require a wiki update > > by those able to understand contributors, wouldn't it? ;-) > > Vandalise OSM to prove a point and we'll kick you out. Just so that > governments around the world can see that we're taking that seriously. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
