Specificity vs Readability
ߊ߬ ߟߊߦߟߍ߬ߣߍ߲߬ ߦߋ߫ 3ngineer ߓߟߏ߫ 29 April 2017 ߦߋ߫ English ߟߋ߬ ߘߐ߫ ߟߊ߬ߞߎ߬ߘߦߊ߬ߟߌ߬ ߞߐߟߕߊ 22 May 2017 ߘߐ߫Sometimes I wonder if the ability to define such specific details actually makes the map more confusing and inconsistent rather than informative. By no means am I an expert, but I have a feeling that there’s a lot of info that’s practically not needed. The ability to add it just makes people fight and unhappy with others’ judgement. Also, the map can become confusing when very similar types of things are drawn different ways; I think that contributes to OSM’s messiness. Nevertheless, if we take out too much info, we would just become Google maps XD so perhaps just ensuring similar things have similar styles is the best approach.
Discussion
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ Warin61 ߟߊ߫ 29 April 2017 at 22:29 ߘߐ߫
Some seek dirt roads, others avoid them. Same thing with toll roads. I have detailed some inclines too .. under 15% is my cut off point.
Those might be some of the ‘details’ you regard as ‘practically not needed’?
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ Alan Trick ߟߊ߫ 30 April 2017 at 18:44 ߘߐ߫
This really depends on what you’re up to, but on things like back-country trails I often find it very helpful to know things like trail_visibility & sac_scale.
There are certainly a lot of ways that have superfluous tags as a consequence of import scripts though.
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ Carnildo ߟߊ߫ 1 May 2017 at 21:24 ߘߐ߫
Speed limits are pretty useful when finding the fastest route.
ߡߙߌߣߊ߲ ߞߊ߬ ߝߘߊ߫ Piskvor ߟߊ߫ 2 May 2017 at 15:41 ߘߐ߫
Different people care about different details. Lane attributes? Destination signs? Maxspeed? Lit? Wheelchair access? Stairs with stroller ramps?
“I don’t need this” != “this is useless”.