On 14-Oct-16 05:22 AM, Gregory wrote:
I agree with what Chris says.
I continue mapping with the tagging scheme I use until someone
messages me as a discussion. By ignoring current usage (regarded with
more reverence than the wiki) your consumption will potentially miss
new data that mapper adds, they will likely be unaware of your mass
manual edit.
As an occasional data consumer, I have also used tags on non-public
projects because I once looked at a local area (or did mapping of it
myself) and saw what was used. Why is it fair that you break my system
without even contacting people who mapped with those tags?
"MY system"? Really. Once it is 'in' OSM it is no longer 'yours'. I
think of OSM as a community .. diverse but all want a map.
Where a tag is undocumented on the wiki then it is very open to
interpretation ... and the interpretation could well be that the tag is
an error.
There are probably at least 40,000 different ways of tagging the same
object ... by using the wiki documented methods the data becomes more
usable, consistent, understandable rather than fragmented and confusing.
While upsetting a single mapper is not good, that could be better than
upsetting many more.
From the east coast main line,
Gregory.
On Oct 13, 2016 6:53 PM, "Chris Hill" <o...@raggedred.net
<mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote:
Stuart, You explained your idea (thanks for emailing first) and
you added 'in case anyone has any violent objections'. I voiced my
objection. I'm not in charge nor am I the OSM Police, you should
proceed as you see fit and so will I.
I have written about this process more than once in the past, for
example
http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html
<http://chris-osm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/homogenised-data-no-thanks.html>
Cheers, Chris (chillly)
On 13/10/16 18:33, Stuart Reynolds wrote:
Dave, yes - sorry. Mistyped what I had been sent. It is only
127, two of which are one single instance of access:psv:bus,
which surely ought to be just bus=*, and one single instance
of access:psv:maxweight
Chris - I will quite happily build in different tagging
schemes if I feel that the tagging is correct and likely to be
repeated elsewhere. But I don’t believe that this is. It is
unexpected, and it is undocumented. I haven’t looked to see if
it is one user, or 127 different users. But either way it is
at most 127 out of the 40,000 contributors that we apparently
had last month according to a different thread today. And the
whole purpose of me asking was, anyway, to find out if people
had a real need to tag in this unusual way before I changed
it, rather than to be told that if you found me doing it,
you’d /insist/ [my italics] on it being reverted.
Regards,
Stuart Reynolds
for traveline south east & anglia
On 13 Oct 2016, at 18:07, Dave F
<davefoxfa...@btinternet.com
<mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>
<mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com
<mailto:davefoxfa...@btinternet.com>>> wrote:
Stuart
I'm only returning 127 (Worldwide) & 29 (UK, 24 Nottingham)
Compared with 77857 for psv=*
Chris
If they're to signify different entries, what are those
differences.
If they're for the same entity what is the advantage of
access:psv. If there is none, they should be change as
clearly more users are expecting psv=*
If the changes are to a more popular or useful tag, then
there's no harm. With fewer tags, it makes it easier for a
consumer to validate the data.
DaveF.
On 13/10/2016 17:38, Chris Hill wrote:
Please don't change the tags to suit your application.
If every data consumer changed the tags they don't
like it would be mayhem. If you edit tags and by doing
that you upset a single mapper, that is a disaster -
mappers are our most precious resource.
Change your processing to include both types of
tagging. It is not hard to do, you write the code once
and use it whenever you need to in the future.
Cheers, Chris (chillly)
On 13 October 2016 17:12:21 BST, Stuart Reynolds
<stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk
<mailto:stu...@travelinesoutheast.org.uk>> wrote:
Greetings all!
In Nottingham in particular there are a number of
roads marked
with access:psv tags. This is unusual, in that I
would normally
expect to see simply psv=* on these roads - and
more importantly
(to me) so would my contractor who is importing
the data. I’ve
checked the wiki for “access” and it seems to
agree with the
contractor that psv=* is the preferred tagging scheme.
There are only 275 instances of access:psv
worldwide, and I
propose to change those (manually) in the areas
that I am
concerned about in the UK. This is just to let you
know, in case
anyone has any violent objections or wonders what
I am up to.
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org <mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
<https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb>
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
