Saikrishna Arcot wrote:
Part of the problem between the tagging schemes and the rendering is
that it's a chicken-and-egg problem; a new tagging scheme is
created, but rendering support isn't there yet (partly because it's
a somewhat complex structure), so people might not use that scheme.
However, if there were many instances of using the newer scheme,
then it would be justified for the renderers to add support for that
scheme.
This is a helpful data point to know (and so thank you) but it still
feels lacking in what we might do about it. "Create more instances"
(using a new tagging scheme)? Sure, that couldn't hurt, but it may
also not be enough -- it seems quite random as to what gets
implemented vs. not. Maybe, in a crowdsourced project like OSM,
that's just the way that it is: people do what they want to do.
A slightly bigger issue I see is that there are two formats for
tagging transportation routes, which will not only require data
consumers to code for both formats, but will also make it harder to
link a bus route tagged using the newer format be "connected" to
another bus route using the older format. I feel that this should be
resolved quickly.
Yes, I agree: this is not only a "bigger issue" but it is also an
immediate issue. The Transport layer is Right There in our faces as
we browse the map as an available layer. There should be a stronger
connection between what renderers are made available there (the five
we have are a nice mix, but again we can do better and should strive
to do so) and what syntax/tagging "is supported" in each of those
renderers. More visibility into what might be called a "project
plan" for each of those renderers? (Could also be too much to ask, I
realize).
I still feel like "auxiliary" renderers (Transport, Humanitarian...)
which are not "Standard" are a big mystery in OSM. I'd like better
documentation (wiki, github, whereever...I don't care so long as it
is available) about what these do, why, how they get updated with
"better" or "newer" rules (or even if they do) and so on. It is
great that we have additional renderers, I'm just asking for greater
visibility into them. I think that plants good seeds for better,
different and newer renderers to emerge, and even better ways to do
them. Those newer methods/processes can feed back to improve all
renderers, I believe.
OSM without renderers is simply a database. Renderers really are a
crucial component of how our data get used, and whether those uses
are more useful or less useful. Yes, I know: many folks use OSM
data with custom rendering software only for their application. But,
while important, those users are in the vast minority. "Most of us"
use "off the shelf" renderers, and are essentially at their mercy.
Let's address that with greater visibility into how they get improved.
Thanks for your answers,
SteveA
California
_______________________________________________
Talk-us mailing list
Talk-us@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
