Ah, waldo00...., I guess I may have jumped the gun a bit, sorry ! I initially misread your message as saying subjective tags are a no-no. Can I paraphrase you ? Use objective tags if possible, then, if necessary, subjective ones determined by some sound guidelines documented on the wiki ?
We are marching side by side so far .... However, I don't think we have suitable, sound guidelines on the wiki ! I tried to get some support for extending tracktype= ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:Davo ) but not enough people were interested. I did not consider it a great solution but was one that would work. Then tried to get some other consensus solution, again, not enough interest. So, its just http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Tagging_Guidelines#Unsealed_and_4wd_Roads Sigh .... David On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 15:47 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: > David, to me your response seems to be mostly in agreement with what I > said. On what point, exactly, do you disagree? > > > Do you at least agree that a useful tag is one whose meaning is either > 1) immediately obvious (e.g. like width=*) OR 2) clearly/objectively > described in the wiki? > > > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 2:09 PM, David Bannon > <dban...@internode.on.net> wrote: > > I am not sure I agree with you Waldo0000.. (???). > > Its useful in my opinion when ever storing data (of any > nature) to think > about how that data will be used. While we will often find > other use > cases later on, addressing the primary one is important. > > I think very few users of map data are prepared to, eg, > install mapnik > or grep through the downloaded data relating to a particular > road they > may consider using. Instead, they want to get a idea of just > how > passable a road might be. They are asking a very subject > question and > expect a subject answer. > > They want to know if its a sealed or not. If not, they will > ask if its > suitable for a conventional car, an SUV, a 4wd, a "blood and > guts 4wd". > Armed with that info, they look at their own car and their > willingness > to take risks and/or have some fun. > > Thats all very subjective ! My point is, most of that process > is, of > necessity, completely subjective, not just the tagging we are > talking > about here. > > The smoothness= tag > ( http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:smoothness > ) tries to address this, but smoothness is quite often not the > issue and > the values given to smoothness= are simple horrible (pun > intended). (I > suggested, in the past, we should alias something like > 'drivability' to > 'smoothness'). Anyway, smoothness= has all those subjective > problems, > its there and usable. If I could get over the idea of calling > my > favorite tracks 'horrible', I'd use it ! > > > So, at the risk of being called politically incorrect, I think > we need > to collect data that can and will be used. > > David > > > On Tue, 2013-05-14 at 07:58 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com > wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Steve Bennett > <stevag...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > Sometimes people think that it's better to slice up > > information into > > lots of little "objective" facts, like (in the case > of > > mountain bike > > trails), width, surface, grade, etc, rather than a > > "subjective" fact > > like trail rating. But in practice, it's impractical > to > > collect that > > much information, and it's impractical to combine it > back into > > a > > usable form for data consumers, so we lose twice. > > > > > > The important point is that a subjective tag at least needs > an > > objective definition. See e.g. the pretty good definitions > on > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Grade. The subjective tag > > "tracktype=grade1", according to the definition "Paved track > or > > heavily compacted hardcore" could easily be replaced with > the > > objective tags "surface=paved" or "surface=compacted". > > > > > > I would argue that entering objective facts (e.g. > "surface=*" in the > > previous example) is a much better option than subjective > tagging. It > > requires no more information than you already have, and is > no less > > practical for data consumers. It's actually more powerful, > specific, > > clear, verifiable > (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Verifiability), > > and reduces the dependency of mappers and consumers on the > wiki to > > make sense of the data. > > > > > > Point is: if you insist on using subjective tags as a > short-cut, > > please, please at least ensure they have objective > definitions in the > > wiki. > > > _______________________________________________ > > Talk-au mailing list > > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > > > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
