Hi Wouter, On 28-01-16 11:38, Wouter Hamelinck wrote: > > That is true but I'm missing a general mapping strategy, there is some > widespread tag misuse IMHO. > > > IMHO this is valid for any kind of mapping, even where there exist clear > guidelines.
Yes you are totally right. But we can do better I believe. There is a strong core growing in our community lately. Some smart people..., let's raise the bar. > > It's really a binary thing, either it exists and verifiable in the > field, or either it's not. We don't record historic buildings that have > disappeared, same applies to those roads that are gone and merely exist > on paper.<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be> > > > It is not as binary as you would like to. Roads don't reappear > spontaneously. Paths do. Sometimes limited periods of the year. > Buildings don't move spontaneously. Path certainly do. > > The binary cases are > - visible and accessible year-round: in OSM > - invisible and totally inaccessible (e.g. going through building): not > in OSM > I think we can all agree on that. Awesome. Those are the most important ones too. > It gets a bit more tricky in the border cases, and there I add my opinion > - visible and inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): in OSM, with > access=private or whatever is appropriate and mapping the barriers > - sometimes visible and year-round accessible: in OSM > - visible and sometimes accessible (due to fences): in OSM and lots of > fun with the access tags > - visible and sometimes accessible (due to vegetation): in OSM. Is there > by now a seasonal tag that can be used? > - invisible and year-round accessible: in OSM (*) > - year-round invisible and year-round inaccessible (e.g. due to fence): > not in OSM (motivation: why would it be? It's no use to anyone) > > (*): this is probably the most controversial one. If the consensus is > that this doesn't belong in OSM, just walk it a few times and you are in > the case "sometimes visible and year-round accessible". Put it in OSM as > such. > > Just as a description of cases where it not binary. If often pass over > ways that are in Atlas, but most of the time you don't see any path. I > just happen to know how the way crosses the field and that's how I go. > Because it is in the Atlas, I'm allowed to do so. Even when crops are > growing in the field I make my way across (**). > Sometimes I encounter footprints, so I'm definitely not the only one > that is using it. Especially during the winter a faint path may become > visible. When a group of people happened to pass a few days (or even > weeks depending on the weather) beforehand, you see a more or less clear > path. Should it be in OSM? For me that is yes. Even if you won't see > anything most of the year. > (**): unless the farmer decides again to plant those thorny things that > ripped my legs open when I tried to run across them Ok, you make valid points, since you're a walker.. I drive to the Dojo ;-) I agree with your views for most of the points you make. But maybe my focus was wrong. I want to define the appropriate tags and document it. I just checked the wiki, we even have multiple pages on those topics. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Slowroads http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Walking_Routes http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/WikiProject_Belgium/Conventions/Walking_Routes Trage wegen deserves a full page with tagging conventions. I've been reading up on all threads on this subject and we have some good information we shared, It's a lot to read through already. Concerning all those different non-binary paths, we actually lack a a better way to tag the "visibility/accessibility in time" (summer/winter/vegetation/flooded, etc. ). I actually thought it existed but I can't really find anything on it any more in the wiki. Everyone works like he wants, but I would focus on those binary ones first, and then the exception. The wiki page could grow along because it is a lot to document. But I understand people like to go deep in detail so I can't complain about a good thing. I'm more like : I want value for my time, I use OSM data for geocoding 24/7, When I add buildings and address data I get better results immediately almost. That's when I start seeing voetwegen in reverse geocoding requests because it has a name key. I believe buurt/kerk/trage wegen ... it really deserves it's own wiki corner. I can easily fix most of the errors in an hour with overpass. The reason I don't do it yet is because I've been analysing the data for a while now and I'm still not sure in what to change it to make it uniform. > Joost, > I think it would be very good to put that page online (with disclaimer > that it is under discussion at the moment). You might get some heat at > points where some people don't agree, but at least it will make the > discussion more focused. Totally support this and I will contribute. I want to start with this mail thread. No heat, this is a wiki, anyone who disagrees should contribute. When most of it is done, it's overpass time. But then the mappers who are working on it can check with the wiki how to do this. The mistakes are caused by lack of docs, not by people. Glenn _______________________________________________ Talk-be mailing list Talk-be@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-be
