Nelson
>I agree with Richard and Frederik's suggestion that this is an issue
>only in the UK, and that you take it to a forum where everybody
>understands what the heck you're talking about.
See previous reply.
>But may I make a suggestion? That the best way to resolve differences
>is to write them down in a Wiki page (easy to do in your own
>namespace), link to places where your wisdom differs from the common
>wisdom, insert a link from there back to your page, and say "This is
>how I map." If people share your wisdom, they will follow you.
This has been done. Both in and not in my own namespace. There is no wisdom in
this. It's just the flaming obvious!
>And a further suggestion: that if what you are doing does not conflict
>with what other people are doing, then the problem isn't a mapping
>problem, it's a rendering problem. Rendering problems are solvable
>without requiring coordination between people.
This does conflict. One person may tag highway=track to what is a footway (UK
access right). It is highway=footway
with a track there also. Or (according to designation=) it's highway=track
designation=public_footway, but this is
not recognised by mapnik, and therefore is half way to being a solution.
>The easiest way to create order in OSM is to DOCUMENT HOW YOU MAP, and
>DON'T MAP IN OPPOSITION TO HOW OTHER PEOPLE MAP. We don't all need to
>map the same way, but the people who use the data need to understand it.
Here I completely disagree. Not that it's not the commonly stated philosophy,
but that it works. Standardisation
is everything to data of any value. If I decide to change motorways to
natural-wood then that is just wrong,
it's not 'my own style'. It is important to be able to make up tags and tag as
you wish where tags currently
don't exist, but where something does exist unity is vital to good data.
And that is why I'm posting here. I can easily get rid of the whole problem by
just having a render rule sheet
which has tracktype= render a track, rather than highway=track+tracktype=
render a track. And yes this is a 'render'
issue. But mapnik and osmarender are on OSM's main page, so it's more than
just a render. There 'keys' which state
what things mean contradict map features, and they influence how people map, so
they are more than just a render.
Now asuming progress is made on a wiki discussion page, which has happened many
times, and people with similar mapping
issues have come to agree with what i'm saying. The issue then is that the
rulesheets for the main renders
then have to follow, and then ironically lead that change, and that doesn't
happen. I love the work that people
have done, and mapnik is stunning, but it is vital that it and the wiki match
up for the fundermental features.
Now what happens is that I state the issue and a solution, and people say why
it's not an issue for them,
and that's that. It make's no progress. People then have issues later on,
don't corralate it as being the same
issue, and in dribs and drabs (rather than in it's entirety) have map feature
changes made to patch there specific
issue.
If there was no issue, which boy I'd really like to be the real answer, then
someone would say, ok tag xyz and it
will render abc.
Never has this happened; therefore there is a problem, becuase an alarmingly
commonly appearing feature can't be mapped/rendered. And I can't stress the
word 'commonly' enough.
Ben
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
