On 10/09/2015 12:20 PM, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:06:17 +1000
Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 9/09/2015 3:36 PM, Maarten Deen wrote:
On 2015-09-09 05:18, Warin wrote:
The some of the wiki pages appear to be written for the renders,
while others look to be written for the mappers. This is confusing!
I believe there should be two versions of the wiki pages - one for
mappers who need simple descriptions of the tag/s and another for
renders that give information on rendering the tag/s. So two pages
- mappers version and renders version.
I think most "key" pages have both.
The information has been mixed up together. I would rather see it
separated so that th emaper is not presented with the renders
information.
What do you mean by that? Why mapper in your opinion should not be
"presented with the renders information"? Also - what is "renders
information" that supposedly is useless for mapper?
Consider this bridge...
It has an 8 lane roadway, a footway, a cycleway and two trainlines that run
across it.
It has it own name, web page .. and a wiki page.
It is far more prominent both nationally and internationally than the roadway,
the footway, the cycleway or the two trainlines that run across it or even
when those are combined the bridge still dominates. I put it to you that this
bridge is not a property of these things.
If anything the road, footway, cycleway and trail lines are properties of the
bridge.
http://www.sydneyharbourbridge.info/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Harbour_Bridge (With errors naturally
..e.g.
the pylons may now be decorative but they formed an essential part of its
construction.)
Think you'll find similar view points for other well known bridges (Tower
Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge ...).
A mapper does not view it as a property of the way but a feature to be mapped.
It is a renders view that a bridge is a property of the ways across it .. so
that it can be rendered as part of that way.
Both views are valid, one from a data entry view point, the other from a data
presentation. Both have their problems.
To tell some one who is entering data that a bridge is a property of a road ...
what happens when the bridge remains but the road is gone?
Yes I know the solution too .. but saying it is a property of the road will
confuse the mapper.
The mapper enters a way/area representing the BRIDGE .. with appropriate tags.
Then the way can be tagged with a road etc ..
and the road may be tagged disused/abandoned/raised.
Just a different way of looking at it.
The bridge may dominate from the mappers perspective, thus to the mapper the
bridge is not a property of something else.
I would refrain from listing road or bridge as a property on the properties
page, at least for a mapper.
In fact I'd rather not enter the conflict and simply not list any of these as
'properties'.
Back to the properties page!!!!!
I view it like the shops, amenities pages - where a mapper goes to find a
general guide as to what is available.
I cannot say without more thought as to what a render expects from these pages.
Possibly the render wants/needs the bridge etc listed as a property!
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
