Changeset: 53418470
(no comment)
Closed by Mike Baggaley
Tags
build | 2.5-7-gbd74430 |
---|---|
created_by | Potlatch 2 |
version | 2.5 |
Discussion
-
Comment from will_p
Hi Mike,
I object to the change you have made here. You have changed bridge=chain to bridge=yes. How has the data been improved by this? You appear to only be stripping out information. I don't believe there is any consensus that bridges must only be tagged with bridge=yes. bridge=chain identifies a distinctive type of bridge.
I notice you have been making similar changes in dozens of other changesets. If you are going to systematically alter bridge tagging in this way, you really should discuss it with the community first. The fact that you have chosen to make these changes over several months, often with one object per changeset, does not change that, because it is clearly systematic.
Regards,
Will -
Comment from Mike Baggaley
Hi Will, the reason for doing this is that bridge=chain is not rendered as a bridge by OSM, and is not included in the list of approved values. The bridge has a note on it saying it is a chain so no information has been lost.
Regards,
Mike -
Comment from Richard
note= tags aren't machine-readable - so in practice, moving things from a machine-readable tag to a note means that they are practically lost to all consumers.
At the very least, this should have been moved to bridge:structure= rather than a note= .
There is no "list of approved values". Those documented on the wiki are simply "informal standards" (as http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Map_Features explains) and removing information like this is discouraged, to put it mildly.
-
Comment from SK53
On the contrary information has been lost: changing a tag to a note is always information loss. You are changing tagging for the renderer, a practice which has been discouraged for many years. Instead you should a) file an issue with the rendering github repository and b) improve the wiki documentation. There are NO APPROVED VALUES, only widely used tags. This particular bridge seems to be unusual and therefore has historic value.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
To be honest, as there's no highway or railway over it I'd add the "man_made=bridge" object (as a closed way) if possible.
It'd donkey's years since I've been to the Priest House though, so my memory isn't up to it. -
Comment from Mike Baggaley
The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges. For example, there were quite a few bridge=culvert tags which on examination mostly turned out to be waterways below roads and should not have had a bridge tag at all. Therefore it is not possible to say that bridge-* means there is a bridge (which I assume is also why the OSM renderer does not show non-standard values as bridges). In this particular case I could not decide what the correct structure should be, as 'chain' doesn't really describe it fully, so left it with just the note. Please accept my apologies if you are offended by this change - I will happily add bridge:structure=<something> if you can give me a suitable value.
I note that whilst many tags say something along the lines of "use other values as appropriate", the wiki for key:bridge states "The tag has a short list of main values given below; additional types and properties of bridges can be described with bridge:structure=*, bridge:support=*, and bridge:movable=*." which I think suggests that other values are not intended to be used in the main bridge= tag.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
> The difficulty with having an indeterminate set of bridge values is that it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges.
Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:
https://github.com/SomeoneElseOSM/SomeoneElse-style/blob/master/style.lua#L506
-
Comment from Mike Baggaley
>Speaking as someone who's done that, no it isn't:
What you have actually done there is build your list of 'approved' values :)
-
Comment from Richard
> it is impossible to determine which of the unusual values are actually bridges
That's a genuine issue, but one which would be better fixed by removing the not-actually-a-bridge values than by removing the actually-a-bridge values. ;)
-
Comment from SK53
No, he's built a list of values which he finds useful. One of the main points of OSM is to allow the description of the unusual & idiosyncratic because a rigid list of approved values inevitably cannot cope. People enforcing a set of values devalues what OSM is about. For instance you have changed a number of bridge=footbridge which I have added over the past few months. It may be an inadequate tag to capture what I want to do, but it certainly has more meaning than bridge=yes. For a start it makes them much harder to find if I wanted to enhance the tagging. If unusual bridge values upset you I suggest you render your own map & stop tagging for OSM-Carto.
-
Comment from SomeoneElse
Yes - what SK53 has said is correct. It's probably clearer to look at some of the other examples in the same file (barriers, shops, offices). For example, depending on the application it might make sense to render or otherwise process a cycle_barrier the same as a motorcycle_barrier or it absolutely might not.
Ways (1)
Welcome to OpenStreetMap!
OpenStreetMap is a map of the world, created by people like you and free to use under an open license.
Hosting is supported by Fastly, OSMF corporate members, and other partners.
https://openstreetmap.org/copyright | https://openstreetmap.org |
Copyright OpenStreetMap and contributors, under an open license |