Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Quest: Map crossing=island #495

Closed
rugk opened this Issue Aug 17, 2017 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@rugk
Copy link
Contributor

rugk commented Aug 17, 2017

Continuing the discussion from here.

As always the implementation is great, thumbs up to @ENT8R, but it would be greater with that 馃彎. 馃槈
Especially as here, in Germany and Austria these are not that uncommon.

My suggestion would be to just add a small message box below the three images, which says:

[ ] This crossing has a traffic isle in the middle.

As that "property" can, of course, apply to all these three images, that is reasonable, IMHO. And it does not take much vertical space away鈥
Downside: You have no image there. But if you want to be sure, maybe display the image (similar to how you show a popup for livingstreet or so) when the user first clicks on taht checkbox and let him/her confirm the decision. Afterwards, this is hopefully not necessary anymore as they "learned" what a traffic island is. (and that it is not 馃彎 馃槈)

Alternatively, try to get it into "Other answers" somehow? (Don't know how yet, however, because you also need the "initial" answer to the main quest.)

/cc @Etua @krzyk

@westnordost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

westnordost commented Aug 17, 2017

I think we have established by now that the traffic island is a separate property and thus should not be answered in the same quest.

@rugk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

rugk commented Aug 17, 2017

Hmm, okay鈥 However with StreetComplete we cannot change the properties/elements.

So e.g. this is what we want (---- is the crossing):

|             |
| ---- o ---- |
   ^       ^

There are two quests and we do not need traffic-island. However, what is, if it actually is mapped "incorrectly":

|             |
| ----------- |
       ^

There one quest is asked. So now, the StreetComplete user should have the possibility to indicate there is an island. A(nother) mapper could later still change the crossing to properly modify it.

For doing so, we could:

  • use crossing=traffic-island, as requested
  • OR: add a note on OSM stating the same issue
  • Or, theoretically, StreetComplete could split the thing in the middle by itself. But I know, you likely won't implement this.

As for the UI, the proposal remains the same.

Now: Is it worth it?
That's where we need data鈥 How common is the "incorrect" case? If it is popular, it makes sense to include that checkbox.
I have just no idea how to get data on this, as we, of course, need historical data鈥

@westnordost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

westnordost commented Aug 17, 2017

I don't understand your example.

@rugk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

rugk commented Aug 17, 2017

The first one is with an island. The second is not. Now clear? (Was just some try to make it visual鈥馃檮)

@westnordost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

westnordost commented Aug 18, 2017

No

@rugk rugk changed the title traffic-island for CrossingType quest Quest: Map crossing=island Aug 18, 2017

@rugk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

rugk commented Aug 18, 2017

Ah, I think I misunderstood your comment.

thus should not be answered in the same quest

Okay, I don't care and I am fine with using another quest for that. Then take this issue as such.
But why not use a simple checkbox in the usual crossing quest simplify the whole thing?

The problem with a separate quest is, how does one/StreetComplete mark a crossing as "not an island"? AFAIK this is not possible and thus such crossings would always get the repeated quest: "Is there an island?"
So when one can answer whether a crossing has a 馃殾 then one can also see whether there is a traffic island in the middle鈥 Why not combine that?
Of course, sometimes traffic island are mapped by splitting the crossing into two parts anyway, but this is something the user can see on the map.

Also AFAIK it is not "a separate property", it still belongs into the crossing=* key鈥

@westnordost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

westnordost commented Aug 18, 2017

Because I consider the tagging scheme as it is documented so problematic that I do not want to use it. Rather than inventing a new scheme for that use case to tackle the very problem you mention - yes, you identified the problem correctly - I rather do not have it at all.

Frankly, I just want to work on and maintain this app. I don't want to additionally take care of and embroil myself in tagging discussions. If a tagging scheme is not usable for this app the way it is (documented), then I leave it.

Basically, see the discussion in #432.

P.S: This has only marginally something to do with this, but did you read http://blog.imagico.de/social-engineering-in-openstreetmap/ ? I found it an interesting read.

@westnordost

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner

westnordost commented Aug 18, 2017

(Closed because you correctly identified that with the current tagging scheme, there is no way to distinguish between "no traffic island" and "traffic island hasn't been identified yet")

@rugk

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

rugk commented Aug 18, 2017

Okay, I see your point although I'd still advocate for a new quest at least. (And yeah, I've read most of the PR already.) In any case, I see you see a root problem, so to move (OSM as a whole) forward, this issue should be addressed. So to tackle the problem at the root, I (re)raise a discussion in the wiki.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can鈥檛 perform that action at this time.