On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder) < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dave Stubbs wrote: > >Sent: 19 March 2008 2:25 PM > >To: Gervase Markham > >Cc: talk@openstreetmap.org > >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Tag proposal/approval system is too heavyweight > > > >On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Gervase Markham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > >> Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> > Why not ditch the whole notion of "approved" features altogether. It > >> > doesn't cut any meat in our community anyway. What does "approved" > >> > mean, and who has the right to "approve" something? > >> > >> Having an approved set of tags means that there is ideally 1, but > >> certainly a small number of ways of tagging common features, rather > than > >> 15 or 50. This makes it much easier for renderers, routing and other > >> types of software, and much easier for people who are improving an > area > >> of map that someone else has worked on to figure out what they meant. > > > > > >Just because you don't "approve" the tag, doesn't mean everybody does > >their own thing and ignores everyone else without any discussion. > >And this thread is starting to give me deja vu.... so lets not rehash > >this argument again. > > > > > >> > >> It also means that when a particular tag is used, it only has one > >> meaning. Without some standardisation, does maxspeed=50 mean mph or > kph? > >> Or does it vary from country to country? > > > >whoa! now that's some serious deja vu.... > > > >> > >> What is the difference between your argument and "Why have the notion > of > >> an "approved" set of HTML tags? The web is a collaborative community. > >> No-one has the right to approve anything. We should all just use the > >> markup tags that seem most sensible."? > > > >it's called XML... and microsoft have proved what really cuts the mustard > >there. > > > >> > >> > >> > Right, generate it from the planet file and that's that. Maybe have > a > >> > wiki page that documents what the renderers do and at what zoom > level > >> > (ideally auto-generated as well). > >> > >> Except that such a generated page would have no way of ordering and > >> classifying the tags so that you could find the one you wanted. > > > >Here I agree. You want some more information than just that. ie: a > >system where people can document and add meta data to tagging schemes > >such as categorisation and common groupings (although maybe that one > >can be automated a bit). A planet dump is a good base, but some > >explanation for horse=yes wouldn't go amiss. > > > > 80n and I were just discussing this issue over coffee. We both feel that > generating tag lists from planet is a good idea, but to give prominence to > them (ranking if you like) it would be good to have the number of users > for > a particular tag rather than the actual occurrence of the tag in the > database. Yes, but it would be even better to count the number of different users who have *added* an instance of a tag. This is slightly different to counting the users who last edited an element with any given tag. > Planet is supposed to have usernames now (where are we with that > one?) so it should be a relatively simple task to automate from planet as > others have attempted to do previously (tagwatch etc). > > We could still do with a logical layout structure for tags, to help find > them, associate them with other tags, and to assist in new tag names, but > that's a separate task. > > Cheers > > Andy > > >Dave > > > >_______________________________________________ > >talk mailing list > >talk@openstreetmap.org > >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
