User talk:Hawke

From OpenStreetMap

Jump to: navigation, search

I realize that for responding on your tagging schema I miss information on the tagging architecture of osm. Neverteless I will respond, but please correct me if my remarks are not in line with the architecture of osm.

  • As far as I can oversee osm now, I think your schema is great, at least for recreational users of 'ways' (hiking,cycling,canoing,....). They can choose there route-tag (road/path/water/rail) and every route-value can have it's own accompanying keys.
  • I don't expect you will convince the cardrivers to change there highway-family at this moment. Even the cyclist tend to oppose. I didn't see water- en railusers in osm sofar. So I should suggest start with the hikers. I think hikers love a schmema like this:
-mapping hiking-trails/routes is still new in osm. Hikers are asking questions about how to tag them. So it's the right time to serve hikers wordwide with an easy, clear, well-defined tagging schema.
-hikers use all kind of trails/pathes/small roads and are use to share them with other users. So they don't tend to put everything in highway=footway like f.i. cyclists.
-hikers avoid hiking on ordinary roads. If they are using them, it's just as a shortcut to the next trail/path. I myself stop mapping as soon as I am on an ordinary road. So there is little chance on interfering with the highway-family taggers.
  • As you noticed yourself 'route' is taken already. Maybe it's an idea to take a meaningless keyname to stimulate people to use the definition of keys, not the (supposed) meaning of the key, what about 'yakey' ?--rvanderh 12:15, 16 August 2007 (BST)

Sanitary Station and Pumpout

I want to try and persuade you that Sanitary Station and Pumpout should not use the same tag.

The reason for using the same tag for something would be if some lower-detail maps would render the two things the same, and some more specialised or more detailed maps would render them differently. E.g. we have bridge=yes, bridge=viaduct etc. Some maps would just render these all the same; a dedicated railway map would render them differently.

However, Sanitary Station and Pumpout should never be rendered the same. Someone who needs one type can never use the other type, and vice versa. So if they ever ended up being rendered the same on any map, that would lead to a lot of unhappy map users. A second argument is the argument from usage. If you find any map on which these items are marked (normally dedicated canal maps only), I guarantee you they will use different symbols. This implies that they should be tagged as different things.

They also look very different. I would provide you with photos, but they aren't normally things people like taking photos of! A pumpout is like a large petrol pump which sucks instead of blows. A sanitary station is like a large stainless-steel funnel or sink. They are as different in function and form as a bus stop and a level crossing. Their only common feature is that they deal with human waste. But so does a public toilet, and we are using a different sign for that!

Gerv 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point, that they're different enough that it's important to distinguish. However, they're at heart the same thing: a method for removing human waste from a boat.
You say, "Sanitary Station and Pumpout should never be rendered the same" but that's clearly not true. For the purposes of *most* map users, the difference is academic at best. Only a canal-centric map would need to render them differently.
For that reason I suggested a separate tag to indicate which type it is. That way the normal/official map can simply mark it with a more generic "waste processing" icon, while specialised canal maps which need to, can differentiate. And then the generic tag can also be applied to the facilities which RVs/Caravans(?) use on land/roads (consider http://www.sanidumps.com/ and http://www.marinepumpouts.com/ ), and any map which cares about the difference can render them differently, while maps which don't can use a generic icon.
Hawke 15:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Deleting templates

I was just looking at deleting some wiki pages from Category:Labelled for deletion. I notice there's a family of templates:

... created by you, but not being used. OK to delete these? -- Harry Wood 23:54, 6 April 2008 (BST)

Go for it. --Hawke 17:02, 7 April 2008 (BST)
Personal tools
recent changes