On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:58 PM, William Lachance<wrl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Right, you have to split up a way if the tags change as you describe. > However, there's also the (at the very least implied) convention that a > way should not be split if the tags don't change. Yup, that's what I was doing when working by hand. Unless I had to split the way, it stayed as a single way, with multiple nodes necessary to define the path of the way. > At best, the way we're > doing things will unneccessarily enlarge the OSM layer for Canada by > putting in redundant road tagging information into the database. At > worst, you cause problems with third party tools. I agree with the bloat due to redundant tags. Each GeoBase way has an attribution, source, acquisition technique, and datasetname attribute, plus the UUID tag that would not be in the database without GeoBase data. The attribution is needed due to GeoBase requirements, and the UUID others are lobbying for. The source, acquisition technique, and dataset name don't seem to add much value to the database for me. Still not sure where the third party tools you allude to come from though. I've never mentioned them, but you keep saying they will be required for special circumstances included in the GeoBase data. Please explain what would require third party tools. > Look at this from another angle: Should we split up all the existing OSM > road data that people have put in to add in GeoBase UUID information? I've asked the same thing... If some of the data can remain without Geobase attribute compatibility, why not the rest? > Maybe I'm missing something, but I frankly just don't see the purpose in > tagging our data differently from the rest of the world, when we can > achieve the desired end (comparing OSM data to geobase) in an analytical > way simply by comparing the geometry and histories of both data sets > using tools like RoadMatcher. Perhaps this is a question we should put > to the larger openstreetmap community? I will fully admit I've only been > using and contributing to this project only sporadically for about a > year. Same here... hopefully others can explain the other side of the debate for keeping a whack of extra Geobase information in the database. I can perch nicely on the fence here, and debate either side, as I'm not entrenched on either side. The only thing that I'm attached to, is making it easier to manipulate the data, either by merging adjoining ways, or changing the editing tools to be smarter. James VE6SRV _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
