Не вам судить о моей работе - вы о ней ничего не знаете. Я о вашей - куда больше.

There is no and there can not be an universal tag for “marriage place”, since in different countries, cultures and religions it happens in different places. Even within a single country and culture there can be diverse options. For example, in Russia marriage ceremony can be held at general register office, at dedicated civil facility in presence of registrar officer or there can be religious ceremony held at church. All these places are different entities.

Не надо отмазываться, никаких проблем с кодировкой нет и быть не может, признайтесь, уж что у вас руки кривые. А за мою погоду не беспокойтесь - все с ней прекрасно.

Спам - это я понимаю. Но вы бы хоть постыдились собственное название писать с ошибками по-чешски, ровно как и название местности. Позор.

Highway classification in OSM is not based on road quality, it’s based on road function in the whole network. As it was said above, highway=track is widely used for unpawed roads by mistake, for example. Moreover, in Russia, especially in its Eastern part, certain major roads connecting large cities or even parts of country are unpawed or awfully pawed, and they still are highway=trunk.

Physical and functional properties of roads are separated in OSM, while functional properties are not so easy to determine for large fraction of mappers since there is no clear set of definitions or guideline for it.

So, not classification, but understanding of classification by certain mappers is based on their experience, originating from industrially developed countries.

Нет, больше проездных продавать а) не интересно, потому что это МУП и финансово они не заинтересованы б) спрос на услуги общественного транспорта относительно постоянен и мало поддается влиянию, если не меняются практические качества его использования. Гос. организации - это диагноз.

Я вам сочувствую. Да, и это не только “тут”, то есть у вас, а везде. Думаете, в Москве Яндекс “по дружеской договоренности” получил доступ к данным о положении ОТ, так от этого польза какая-то появилась? Хренушки. Во-первых, Яндекс там дорисовывает эти данные, т.к. они часто приходят с перебоями. Во-вторых, лучше транспорт от этого ходить не стал. В-третьих, без исполняемого расписания трекинг почти бесполезен. Это я вам могу сказать, как человек, который пользовался ОТ с нормальным трекингом и реально исполняемым расписанием.

Маггортранс - это МУП, соответственно, выгода от каких-либо телодвижений для них может быть, только если им за это телодвижение кто-то заплатит, даст взятку или сделает откат.

@Akhila Venu is a spammer

Spam.

There are also these services: http://www.targetmap.com/ https://zoomcharts.com/en/

Also, referring to Wikipedia and definitions from the dictionaries is completely wrong since OSM does not use natural language to describe objects - these words, used for keys and values are borrowed from the English language, however, in OSM they should be used as special terms, which sometimes have a bit different (more strict or more broad) definition. So, semantically, this work could be making similar mess as there was before.

Idea of this tool is just great.

But unfortunately, it is incapable to solve the problem of ambiguous definitions.

You are suggesting https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=forest while there is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=wood, as it was mentioned above. To be able to use this tool correctly, there should be clear consensus on exact meaning (and, therefore, on distinctive features) of https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=forest, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=wood, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=grass, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:landuse=meadow, https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural=grassland. So, it seems like it’s just someone’s willful choice.

And what the hell is https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landuse_1?

Also, these tags have “compound” meaning, combining description of floral community and its usage.

I have a diary entry on this topic: @BushmanK/diary/35616

Typical skeet shooting range.

@flohoff,

I’m always quite skeptical towards statements referring to statistics without any links to description of data collection and assessment method (such as “in 90% of all times…”), but here I agree with you in aspect of common misuse of access tags by different reasons. However, in different countries laws are also different, so what’s impossible in Germany is completely possible in the United States, for example.

Some people are really concerned about navigation systems leading map users to certain places with restricted access, but for me it seems like an obsessive idea: if navigator can’t handle different levels of access in form of warnings or destination-only, it’s not a problem of OSM data, any workarounds should be built into converters or data processors, not OSM database itself.

@Warin61,

Since Garmin format is undocumented, we can only speculate about that (however, Basecamp works well with it), but it’s not the main point of this diary entry - it’s about not making a workaround for particular device/converter by tailoring OSM data.

What do you expect, if address is “Scoil Naomh Micheal, Sneem, Co. Kerry, Ireland”? These schools are normally addressed by name.

@joost schouppe,

Yes, these are perfect illustrations of implications, existing within certain culture (language, nation), but completely false in the worldwide scale. Currently, HOT projects covering Africa, South America and Asia, so I’m wondering, how certain tags, born on European soil, working there.

I don’t want to look like radical person, and I’m not insisting on getting rid of tags, which are just not logically elegant. But there are enough tags which are quite meaningless, so it is impossible to use them for any real purpose. Also, there are badly described tags where lack of clear definition in Wiki turned them into barely usable ones. Masts and towers are perfect example - for now, seeing one of these tags, you can only tell for sure that it represents some vertical structure. While, if an author of these tags were able to make a couple of searches, we would have nice two tags for self-supported and guyed vertical structures. (I’ve added an “Engineering definition” section to Wiki pages of these tags to encourage people to use this distinctive feature to differentiate them properly instead of using subjective unverifiable criterion of “something bigger”.)

Indeed, discussions of tagging schemes are useful, but from reading both mail list and Wiki discussion pages, I’ve learned that usually it could be quite passive process. It looks like the majority of people just prefer to express their view and then to be a passive observer.

As I said before, “fast food” is okay in obvious cases. Like, you have a food cart with something (and I know what you are talking about - sitting at Spa Francorchamps circuit watching racecars passing Eau Rouge and eating frites is an unforgettable memories). But it turns into an issue when you have some place at least with seats. What makes it “fast food”, or, otherwise, “restaurant” or “cafe”? McDonald’s has seats and call itself “restaurant”, but people using “fast food” tag for it. At least, nobody took his time to explain it in Wiki. And I don’t see any logical more or less universal criterion for that.

@butrus_butrus,

Thank you for your support. My idea includes some sort of separation of discussion and documentation to avoid common consequence of mixing them in the same place - inability to effectively search through the tons of comments. But, for sure, it makes sense to link issues, corresponding Wiki discussions, mail list threads, forum threads and so on. Currently, level of connection between different places, where similar topics are discussed, is extremely low, therefore, information is highly fragmented.

@joost schouppe,

I’m glad you agree with my point.

Speaking of what can be done about current situation, I’d say, that there are several possible things:

• If there is not enough understanding of problem origin, this problem can even be non-existent. In this case, it’s better to focus on things we know - on “symptoms”. I mean, address common mistakes in Wiki by updating documentation with more detailed explanation. I’m trying to do that in Russian part of Wiki since I’m a native Russian speaker.
• Conduct simple studies and publish brief results in some transparent accessible way to share these pieces of information. It is, indeed, anecdotal knowledge, but since we don’t have anything else, we have to treat it properly.
• Express active resistance to non-reasonable claims referring to myth of newbie to make this practice look unwanted, just like any illogical claims are.

@Diwyd,

There is no general procedure of evaluation or something. First thing you can do is to get in touch with OSM community in your area (or country). There is no general recipe for it too - some national communities (like Russian or German) using forum, some - mail lists and so on. Second thing - don’t hesitate to ask about certain tagging schemes or mapping techniques if you are not sure about something. Be specific in your questions - people will unlikely provide general feedback on questions like “Am I doing everything well?” - they usually don’t have time to investigate your changesets and every feature you’ve created/changed.