@zeromap,

This is some sort of compound problem, and it can’t be addressed in general except of extreme situation with completely wrong translations (it happens too, unfortunately, and it obviously must be fixed immediately).

People are not ideal and can’t be forced to become ideal. Definition can be clear, everything can be explained in details, but there always are people, who refuse to acknowledge, that OSM is an international project. Education works for newbies, but people with long experience often have certain tendency to think that they know everything and that nothing should be changed. It’s not a problem of having not enough information, it’s a problem of being stubborn.

The whole purpose of this diary entry is to demonstrate at leas two cases, where saying “here in this country, we know what that word stands for” is wrong. At least, because OSM tag keys and values are not “words” - these are abstract terms with (hopefully) documented meaning. And nobody here has any right to redefine this meaning according to local understanding. It sounds obvious and natural, but again, there are real people who don’t want to acknowledge it.

@dcp,

And regarding of “in Belgium they understand…” - OSM is an international project, therefore, data should be consistently formed regardless of national flavour. I have another fresh example on this topic right here.

@dcp,

Using semicolon-delimited lists of values is something that is suggested, but rarely used and rarely supported because of cumbersomeness of this method. Multiple nodes for a single business is a makeshift thing, and it creates redundancy. So, both approaches are a kind of existing, but in the same time, nobody wants to use it and to support it.

Your point about gradual improvement is true, but I don’t see how it’s related to this topic. Honestly, if you personally don’t care about having better data architecture, why bother? You’re doing some great job mapping your town, and it’s wonderful. But what’s the point in telling other people, that it’s wrong to try improving data architecture, if they want to do that?

@MarkusHD,

First, I said no single word about prohibiting usage of those values for malls and supermarkets, so if your comment is about ability to look up particular term, I’m not interfering with this ability.

But you should also understand, that without tagging product range, there is no way to search for something without assumptions. And, as I already said above, detailed scheme is reversible, while current “focus-based” scheme is not. Take a look at my test example of shop selling flowers and gifts. Quality of tagging scheme as well as of any other piece of information architecture should be tested against the extreme cases, not average ones.

Indexing this “flower+gifts” shop for POI catalog of some navigation device, it’s easy to put it into two existing predefined categories (in case if this particular software supports it). But using “focus-based” scheme we will have either incomplete data or double data.

And please, keep in mind, that having no sources of data about product ranges is one of those reasons, why there is no by-product search methods. I already gave an example of widely used scheme for fuel, which is completely similar to what I’m talking about. Also, we have many other tags in OSM, like weight and size limitations for roads, not supported by any well-known search engine or navigation device. But we still tagging these things, aren’t we?

My point is, until there is no usable data, nobody will support non-existent data in any search engine.

If someone dislikes my manner of telling about this existing problem - for sure, they have right to feel that way.

But it doesn’t make this problem non-existent or any logic, linked to it, automatically wrong. While thinking, that it does is an ad hominem fallacy.

Oh, I see, people here just want to compete in being offended. That is typical, but it is, again, irrelevant to the topic of tagging. If certain scheme has serious flaws, why on Earth should someone be offended by fact, that he used it for years without understanding that fact? Constructive way of dealing with it is to discuss how to fix that problem, not defensive reaction. There were completely ridiculous, but super-widely used tags such as https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wood=conifer and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:wood=deciduous. Does anyone here feel offended or betrayed because these tags were proven nonsense, deprecated and replaced with proper tags (leaf_type and leaf_cycle)? Probably, everybody (including myself) used those obsolete tags for certain period, but constructive reaction on deprecation of them is to start using new ones, not defending old ones, especially, if your opinion is irrelevant due to lack of knowledge of biology. “What was good for ancestors is good for us” is always bad point.

To discuss anything, one should be at least qualified for it by having enough knowledge on certain topic, otherwise, discussion always turns into repeating similar weak arguments, based on limited knowledge. It is easier, if such people will just abstain from comments. But now I see, that at least four people here just want to fight for their right to speak. That’s wrong place for it, probably. Nobody infringes this right, but it doesn’t make unqualified opinion relevant, unfortunately.

Using Garmin search as a proof of something is wrong, because one of fundamental rules of OSM is not to map for particular device, but describe real-life objects in certain adequate manner. It means, if certain device doesn’t know how to search for something, we shouldn’t avoid tagging it. In addition, any detailed scheme is reversible by design. It means, that it is possible to indicate, that certain product groups is the most important for particular retail business. So, it should be possible to convert detailed tagging into simplistic categories when preparing data for navigation devices, for example. But opposite process is impossible: you can’t extract any information about product range from https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=supermarket.

Also, practice of assuming that your opponent wanted to say something while he didn’t, shows really poor rhetoric skill. It forces others to discuss imaginary things, which is obviously bad idea.

I do realize that any detailed scheme is only good for minority of mappers who can see, why it’s important. Healthcare 2.0 (which is still just a proposal) is, probably, the best example of it. But I’m appealing to people’s logic, not their feelings about precious old tags. And I’m aware of retrogrades, so I’m not proposing getting rid of those nonsense values - if someone wants them, he can use them, why not? But don’t tell others that there is no better way.

@MMN-o, you are only one having a point. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=mall makes any sense by itself only in form of temporary solution to map commercial building identified by satellite image, for example, without knowledge of what’s inside. This is constructive approach to using it.

@CloCkWeRX, where exactly did you get that idea of “physical thing”?

Current Wiki description of shop= says:

Use shop=* to mark the location of a shop and the products that it sells.

If you are not aware of this fact, I have to point on it: many tags in OSM are not representing any physical entities, but describing logical and even abstract properties of objects. Anyway, even if it would be like you saying, practical meaning of values I’ve mentioned above is close to zero, since only minority of people want to just visit a store - they usually want to purchase particular products.

In case of gas stations we do have very detailed and effective scheme, and nobody has to guess, if they can get particular type of fuel and use specific payment method there. How shops are different from it, so it’s okay to make people guess?

Current scheme is not a result of careful planning and development - it’s a product of borrowing inconsistent terms from natural language(s), therefore, mentioning “focus on something” is just an attempt to justify fundamental imperfection of current scheme, which forces mappers to rely on mythical “focus”. This scheme is unable to pass even simple test: imagine a shop, which is called “Alpha”, with two equally sized departments, selling flowers and gifts. You can’t rely on “focus” since there is no one, you can’t rely on name, since it’s neutral. With current scheme you have two ways: 1) randomly pick https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=florist or https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=gifts and make it incomplete; 2) tag both departments individually with both tags, which will be wrong, since it’s a single business.

Your phrase about “listing an inventory down to the last item” sounds like rhetoric exaggeration, because I haven’t said anything about individual items, but clearly mentioned groups of products.

I’m not dismissing any observations, but saying, that observations, limited by particular country, are not enough to make qualified conclusions about any general case (while OSM is an international project, so it should have more or less country-indepentent tagging schemes).

By the way, if someone is going to say anything about “scheme with product groups seems too complicated”, my answer is simple: if it’s too complicated for you, don’t try to bring others to your level.

They tried to do their best to avoid causing unintentional vandalism, but is seems like certain issues are unavoidable or it is too hard to avoid them. Like, yes, theoretically, it’s possible to check if POI was added within certain small area along the road. It still will be possible to create it with wrong coordinates away from the road. So, the main and the largest problem with maps.me editor is that it’s accessible for those who have zero understanding of OSM project. Only productive way to make use of those user-contributed data is to have certain mechanism of supervision. For example, there are two implementations of WhoDidIt monitoring service, but no one of them two have source editor filter option. Having this option will allow more or less experienced mappers to provide that supervision.

OpenCycleMap uses SRTM data as elevation data source, which is also quite far from ideal, therefore, it’s impossible to use it as completely reliable reference. NED data is much better source, but I’m not sure about usage rights.

Did you consider using any raster-to-vector software? http://www.easytrace.com/program/et799_en - this thing is completely free and quite effective.

Honestly, this proposal reminds me so called “old lady’s order” - a concept of arranging things by size and color instead of purpose or way of using them, so it only makes everything look nice, while usage becomes awfully illogical and inconvenient.

There are also some individuals, “Wiki fundamentalists”, who always referring to documentation as to the ultimate authority, while documentation is just an explanation of idea behind tagging scheme, which could easily be far from ideal. These people making it really hard to explain other people that certain practice is bad by arguing that it’s against the Wiki articles.

@Tomas Straupis, OSM is growing, there are other editors and many of them coming, while developers should be able to rely on documentation, not on narrative knowledge. If something is kept only because “old mappers” still insist on using it, but documentation says different things, it could eventually fade away. This is at least inconsistent. And I’m actually more concerned about https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=reservoir, not by https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=reservoir, since the second one is usually assigned to hydroelectric power plant reservoirs with natural bed, while https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=reservoir page is wiped, while this tag can represent completely different, fully artificial entities.

@Warin61, No, I’m not talking about landuse. Right now I’m talking about mapping man-made objects, which are onthologically much closer to buildings, for example.

@Tomas Straupis, I am aware that we can still use any tags we want, but approved tags, for example, have a chance to be included in editor presets, rendering rules and converter rules, while deprecated tags have much lesser chance for that. So, it isn’t only pointless, but harmful.

@gileri,

I agree with you at certain grade. However, my view on this problem is a bit different. I think, that people with no experience and no knowledge of OSM guidelines can actually contribute well, but to give them this opportunity, authors of editors should acknowledge this problem and limit an access by certain amount of common easy-to-map features, where it’s hard to make a mistake. For example, new editor, built into maps.me app, has excellent working hours editor for amenities instead of just single input line. But in the same time, it has a single input line for house numbers, which leads to mistakes in Russia, where house numbers in cities are quite complex sometimes.

It is impossible to force anyone to read documentation, but it is possible to limit his options to make mistakes, if you stop pretending like everybody have similar knowledge, similar motivation and so on.

I can understand, that situation with proposal is unintentional and seems more like throwing away baby with bathwater, because author was thinking about limited spectrum of objects, but instead of deprecation of certain tags clarification of descriptions and strict demarcation of meanings should be applied.

@Warin61, that concept you’ve mentioned is well-known and it has been discussed many times.

But it’s a kind of orthogonal to what I’m talking about now - many man-made objects, such as sewage plant reservoirs, are easily recognizable even on low resolution satellite photos, and presence of any liquid there is a kind of secondary feature of them. I mean, reservoir is always a reservoir, even if it’s currently empty (even abandoned and unusable) or if it’s supposed to be filled with some crap (literally).

Current scheme has certain false implications:

• every kind of reservoir contains water (because https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:water=reservoir, while https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=reservoir and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:man_made=reservoir are deprecated), which is obviously false.
• every kind of reservoir is more or less always filled, which is also false, because, for example, cooling basins are often kept empty during the cold season since air cooling is sufficient.

Again, I’m talking about completely artificial objects, while certain kinds of “man-modified” objects (such as drinking water reservoirs with natural bed, for example) could be still covered with natural= key without setting everything upside down in terms of logic and classification.

Привыкайте использовать верную терминологию, иначе вас не поймут и будут споры/возражения на пустом месте. Если у вас нет проблем с тем, чтобы прокатиться по всему маршруту - это наиболее надежный вариант, так как с тупоголовыми управленцами связываться - та еще история.

OSM - дело добровольное, при этом почётные грамоты никто не выдает, люди работают за собственный интерес, который у каждого - свой. Кому-то наравится домики трехмерные рисовать, кому-то - точность данных повышать, кто-то работает за идею о свободных данных (наперекор корпорациям).

@SomeoneElse,

With roads, we do have preset for iD, but exactly that preset causes misuse of foot=* and bicycle=* tags. If people don’t read and don’t want to read (in broad meaning of this word), only way to give them knowledge is a telepathy, which isn’t an option, since we can’t force anybody to learn.

@Zverik, I know that you are not stupid, therefore, I guess, your question is intended to be “provoking”. But you can’t make a provoking question by exaggerating something to extreme beyond the point where it still makes sense.

Even those active mappers do not have a superpower of telepathy, therefore we need a documentation. And learning about tagging schemes from Wiki is the best way to do that. Regarding of giving examples - I think it makes sense since nobody knows everything and certain real-world concepts should be explained to be tagged properly, especially in case, if particular entity is a bit different from common case.

Actually, more important question in this aspect is should we allow to use certain presets to those, who has no idea about project guidelines.

Good example for this case is abuse of access tags: iD users constantly adding https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:foot=yes and https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:bicycle=yes just because there are some checkboxes labelled “foot” and “bicycle” - they do not know and do not care to know what’s the meaning of these properties.