Am 01.02.2010 22:48, schrieb Frederik Ramm: > Hi, > > Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> It's beginning to happen already. >> >> As OSM's data structures (principally "creative and unexpected uses of >> relations")
ROFL ;-) >> and tags become more complex, and as the project expands beyond >> the initial audience of geeks, the editing tools are inevitably starting to >> abstract away the nitty-gritty. In two years' time, most users won't know or >> care what the cycleway tags are; they'll just click the cycleway icon(s) in >> their editor and tick the appropriate options, and the editor will invisibly >> sort the tags out. Yes, like the presets in JOSM, and I guess this will continue. The current relation editing e.g. still has a *lot* of room for improvements. > I don't think that will make the "we need fixed rules" fraction happy. > We have renderers with fixed rules today - several of them - but that > kind of fixed rules is not what they are looking for. The problem is, that the renderers don't show enough of the variety the mappers want to map. Seems to me that tag discussions very often cool down once a map really is showing a specific feature - maybe except cycleways ;-) > Ulf wrote: >> Seems a lot of mappers would be quite happy to follow an at least more >> fixed tagging scheme than what we currently have today. > > You make this sound as if this is about the freedom of the new mappers. > But they are, even today, free to follow any ruleset, cheatsheet, or > book that they want to use. The problem is: There is no such thing, once you leave the warm and cozy world of presets and Map Features. If you enter the wonderful world of Wiki proposal pages, this becomes a jungle of inconsistent, disputed information. This might be fun for the "initial audience of geeks", but today most mappers are pragmatic and just want to get this damn thing on the map :-) I don't think of them as lazy idiots, but simply pragmatic in the way they spend their time. Not everyone want's to spend his/her whole life in the OSM universe. > It's just that they don't get a guarantee > that everyone else is using the same ruleset but that's ok - there might > be rulesets much too complex for a newcomer, or the newcomer ruleset for > rural Peru might be different from the one for urban Japan. Trying to > make them all the same will needlessly reduce OSM's richness. These > rulesets are unlikely to be devised by the same body; it would be too > complex and the result would be less than optimal for everyone involved. I'm not convinced that this is actually true. > (In my OSM talks I like to show a communist-era poster about a five-year > command economy plan. Command economy sounds like a good idea on paper > but it turns out that the amount of planning required to get it to work > is more than mankind can muster. The same, I think, is true for a > world-wide OSM Ontology.) There are lot's of possible solutions somewhere between a five year plan and the Wiki confusion of today ... Regards, ULFL _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
