>> Fine. Let's say in higher level there is only one "forest". Then my >> topic moves one layer down and stays exactly the same otherwise. >> What I'm talking is about virtual hierarchy. >> OSM tagging comes AFTER that. > > As I map & tag what I see in reality; could you expand on what you mean by > "virtual hierarchy"?
When you create a map (not a GIS database), you start with hierarchy of objects which you're going to display. After that you specify what exactly each of those items in the hierarchy is in your datasets. So in the beginning you define an abstract reason/purpose, only then you specify technical details (f.e. tags). I call this a virtual hierarchy of information. I do understand that a number of different approaches currently exist in OSM. You could look around, see some objects which seem interesting/important to you and then tag them by your best knowledge using natural language concepts. And that is a problem, because even with English speakers those "natural language concepts" are subjective for a number of different reasons. So when we combine a set of objects, tagged by different people with different subjective understanding it is very hard to make a logical system which is essential for quality use. And it also introduces too much arguing later as we can see with this ten year long forest topic which is nowhere close to agreement... even not closer than it was ten years ago. -- Tomas _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
