I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent
composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower + power). Over
time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g.
how do I tag a campsite that is standard + shower? Introduce another
bloody
On 3 May 2015 at 10:22, David Bannon dban...@internode.on.net wrote:
No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either
all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And
imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database.
The proposed
On 3/05/2015 2:50 PM, Ian Sergeant wrote:
I can't see any reason why this responsibility should be given to the
mapper. The corresponding categories may be better held in a software
ruleset, and the mapper just enumerate the amenities on the campsite
that they are aware of.
Mappers take
On 3/05/2015 10:22 AM, David Bannon wrote:
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that
represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower +
Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its
On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote:
I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that
represent composite keys (e.g. serviced === standard + shower +
Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to
look closely at the problem from a
5 matches
Mail list logo
