A little less “my way is the right way” (complaining, plain and simple) and a little more “ah, OSM does what OSM does, I understand how I can both contribute AND make use of it,” please. Lots of us do this (both) and actually improve the map while we’re at it! (Map data, map documentation via wiki, map syntax via proposals, map renderers…).
Examples of “my way is the right way” in a recent post: • (A renderer) doesn’t render wetland names at all (strange for a map with topology) • You won’t find any renderer (except Ture’s) that does what I want • “Well-established methods” don’t make sense • A renderer needs to (have, see, make, do, calculate, merge)…. • However, it’s strange (in two different ways!) having an algorithm that needs “activation” • I don’t think anyone believes (something), that’s just a standard argument to neutralize criticism • A data project that keeps saying “we’re a data project, you want rendering? Go write a renderer” isn’t exactly ideal for (me) making progress • My opinion is that having limited and “soft advice” wiki of how geodata should be interpreted and rendered is a bad idea At this point, I’m tempted to repeat “so, then, don’t use OSM, it doesn’t seem to be what you are looking for.” However, the OP continues: • “It” (you folks making this happen for me) could STILL work if an existing renderer simply decided to become my "wish slave” renderer rather than what I will disparage by calling “an example” or than “the one that you folks have chosen to call Standard” which I declare “does some things wrong.” (Defects to spec are one thing, and good to track and fix as bugs or feature requests, then improvements. THIS is something entirely different!) • My wishes mean that you folks need to PROPERLY render “the concepts which is supposed to work.” Oh, and if it DID work, as I wish it were to work, you folks might discover how inefficient your present algorithm is and how wrong-headed is your approach to “how data is arranged.” Hey, the least you guys could do is allow a new concept (it’s fuzzy, sorry) to be introduced. I mean, REALLY! It’s so RISKY to “design data arrangement concepts without having an own renderer to test them with.” At this point, I say (exhausted) “the data arrangement has been crowdsource-crafted by millions over decades” and “we DO have 'our own renderers' (to test them with).” Wow! Still, the OP continues: • Hey, we have to (tag for the renderer, something we are clearly admonished not to do) to get specific tagging for the renderer! I’m jumping up and down! • Couldn’t you just make wetlands (for me, yes me, that’s me) the way that _I_ want them? What’s wrong with you folks that you won’t or don’t? I actually have to use YOUR data structures and read YOUR documentation to do this YOUR way! Harumph! Why can’t you simply read my mind and do it the way that I like? • What I do is spend faaaaar more time spending time than what you do (or so — which only resounds as, effectively, selfish and/or whining) • Imagine how much easier (for you) it would be if you "simply do” what _I_ want you to do • Your tools are crude (for me to use). (Personally, I find JOSM’s relation editor to be one of its most elegant features for a data structure as relatively complex as a relation. But I digress). Continuing the bleating: • You need to do certain mapping operations by doing certain map operations, which I hereby complain about being too simplistic • You could STILL “save yourselves” by doing things my way (after a hazy, unproven technique is sketched, while inventing “layers,” a concept that is nearly 100% unlikely to be ratified in OSM anytime soon) • You must convert and generalize asap, because vector tiles will save us • I have noticed that my fellow mappers in my country here DO pay attention to the admonishments to not map for the renderer, so I suppose “everybody” finds this a difficult to grasp concept. (Nope). • You sure ought to look into making things easier. (For me). • You sure ought to “think twice” about improvements that I don’t like, as it makes it more difficult (for me) to edit. Whew, I need a shower! CONSTRUCTIVE criticism to improve OSM is welcome. Simply dumping on the project like I have summarized above wears out that welcome. Not in a good way. A couple hours ago, I was impressed with the direction of this thread, as I thought it was taking a turn of “people can improve OSM, people DO improve OSM.” Then, the thread started to veer off the road again. Keep it constructive, people, please! SteveA _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging