I totally support the idea of tagging the "branches". It is useful and as long as the information is accurate, I can't find any reason to remove it.
Bon dimanche à tous:
Ruben Le 21 juil. 2012 22:50, tnk@gmx.net a écrit :
Hello Stéphane D.,
j'espère que ça va si je réponds en anglais, ça me prendrait un peu trop de temps en français.
To use your example with the arboretum, obviously you don't need to hang a tag at each branch of a tree as long as the tag at the trunk is visible. Hanging a visible tag somewhere would correspond to the act of rendering. But that doesn't change the fact that each branch belongs to a certain tree. This is the difference between the renderer, who needs to decide what kind of detail is appropriate for each zoom level, and the underlying data, that can contain much richer information.
And if you look at a long branch at a zoom level where the trunk might be out of sight, or if you are looking at a place where branches of different trees are almost touching each other, it can be useful to know which branch belongs to which tree without going back to the trunk. Again, I think this decision should be up to the rendering algorithm. For an example of a "label overkill" (done by a questionable rendering algorithm), have a look at with how many labels the Chemin de Montéclard in Epalinges is rendered in the Bing map:
http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=rrrfzbhjnpgy&lvl=19.41&dir=348....
But ultimately, my point is a different one: Since I have started mapping in 2010, it happened again and again that Stéphane Brunner felt compelled to "correct" and "improve" information that I had just freshly put on the map, making sure to have everything "his way", and at best notifying me after the fact if at all - not to seek an agreement, but to lecture me about "my error". Moreover, I find it slightly ironic that the very same guy, who felt last year the urge to separate the land cover to the left and right from my forest tracks in order to "represent the physical width" of the tracks, thus creating three times the amount of ways and data to maintain (see here: http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Shernott/diary/14754), feels now the urge to delete information that he deems "abusive", i.e. not of interest to him.
Thorsten
On 21.07.2012 21:44, Stéphane Dewarrat wrote:> Je suis désolé pour Thorsten, je crois que c'est inutile de nommer tous
les chemins annexes (service) à une rue nommée sur le terrain. Ce serait comme si dans un arboretum, il y aurait une plaquette sur chaque branche d'un pommier disant que c'est un pommier... Le lecteur d'une carte devine que c'est attaché au chemin principal et que les bâtiments le long de ces chemins annexes ont comme adresse le chemin principal. J'ai d'ailleur mappé quelques maisons et ajouter le tag addr:street avec le nom du chemin. Je pense que ce serait plus utile. Donc je suis l'avis de mon homonyme.
talk-ch mailing list talk-ch@openstreetmap.ch http://lists.openstreetmap.ch/mailman/listinfo/talk-ch