Le 03.07.19 à 17:36, Paul Allen a écrit : > On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 16:16, marc marc wrote: > Le 03.07.19 à 16:55, Paul Allen a écrit : >>> What "unsigned" doesn't do is identify how the mapper came >>> to any conclusion about the weight >>> limit or how other mappers may verify it. >> unsigned just said "no info on the ground" > The same can be achieved by omitting the tag.
without a tag, you can't tell if somebody have already check for a sign or if you need to survey it. you cannot tell the difference between a lanes=2 road with road markings and a lanes=2 road without road markings (see previous thread) > A fixme is better because quality tools can help mappers > see where more information is needed. No sign on the ground is not an error in osm, it's a fact ! My neighbour did not put the regulatory sign on his new house, unsigned=addr:housenumber changeset source=survey (so no more need for other contributors to do a survey the next day) another day, somebody may add addr:housenumber=<his number> changeset source=local knowledge or opendata what do you want a contributor to correct in osm ? fixme is fully wrong when nothing need to be fixe in osm the same for a road without lanes marking the same for a bridge without maxheight sign none of them is an "stuff to fix in osm" > an object can end up with maxweight=3.5 + unsigned=maxweight Yes, it can happen. > without telling anyone how or why the mapper decided > that the maxweight is, in fact, 3.5. check the source of the changeset that add maxweight=3.5 unsigned=* doesn't try to replace the source tag > you cannot deduce what the absent sign is about. I think you read my message a little too quickly. unsigned=maxspeed is about maxspeed unsigned=maxheight is about maxheight. unsigned=<the name of the key> is about this key I just propose to replace a variety of inconsistent tags by a structured schema for all, for exemple : maxheight:sign=no (and maybe maxheight=default)-> unsigned=maxheight lanes:marking=no and lanes:unmarked=yes-lanes=unmarked > unsigned=lanes nosign=yes (but nobody known for witch sign) -> unsigned=<the key for the expected info> marking=unmarked (but nobody known for witch sign) -> unsigned=<the expected info> fixme/note/description=no <key> sign -> unsigned=key info=unmarked -> unsigned=<the key for the expected info> >> Similarly, when I do a survey and I notice that a house >> does not have the USUAL sign indicating >> its house number, I can said that the sign is not there. > Which would be a little annoying around here, because maybe a tenth of > the houses do not have numbers, only names. > Most of those name-only houses have never had numbers. > You think it sensible to tag unsigned=addr:housenumber for those? I was saying "does not have the USUAL sign" if it's common that houses don't have a addr:housenumber, it's not very useful to put unsigned=addr:housenumber. as it's not very useful to put it on a tree or a field. an app/a contributor can use common sense to be satisfied with addr:housenumber or addr:housename I'm not proposing to decide WHEN a contributor should or should not add the information of a missing sign. I just propose a unified tag when it DOES add it. > I don't think it actually solves any issues that are not better handled > with a fixme or a source tag, or simply omitting the tag. do you propose that app like streetcomplete or that contributors who have added one of the many tags I listed above add a fixme "nosign, maybe something to fix, maybe not" just "in case of" ? it's noise these fixme that indicates a fact and not a problem to solve. or do you suggest that the contributors who add these tags don't add anything to make it uniform ? It seems to me a solution that has no chance of being accepted, check taginfo, some mapper add it. so the question is: a different tag for each missing sign or a tag for all ? Regards, Marc _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
