On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:03:14 +0200, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote: >> I added a category Category:TagsSupportedBy and tagged some pages with it >> as a test. > > I'm not sure why you called the category "TagsSupportedBy" when you want > to apply it to keys and especially relations, too. Wouldn't a simple > "Supported by" or "Features supported by" or something like that fit > better?
I'm not sure what you mean. Nodes, Ways and Relations are identified by Tags. If you apply a category to to a Key that this would mean that all or at least all major values for that key are supported. Maybe we "Supported by" would be better. I am against naming it "Feature" as a feature in the context of an application is something completely different then a feture in the context of a map. Thus it would create confusion. > Also, I don't know why you left out spaces. CamelCase is, imo, > less human-friendly. Well... I'm used to writing names in CamelCase all day. It happens. > > Except that I generally like the idea. I wonder, however, how we should > handle "partial" support. Especially with more complicated stuff like > restriction or multipolygon relations, many applications support only a > subset of the possibilities. Not at all. It's not supposed to be perfect. * The list of supported tags is never complete * The list of values for a tag may change after adding the category * The tag may not be supported in all cases or for all purposed or in all configurations This is mentioned in the individual category-pages. Such a limitation does not change the fact that the tag is evaluated at all and thus it makes sense to apply it wherever it shall be applied. > The only fundamental problem I see in the long term is the amount of > applications that will be added to each and every page. This will > potentially make categories unusable. Maybe it would be better to create > templates to be used at the bottom of each page? You could get the list > of supported features by checking template inclusions, and it would > allow you to choose an appropriate style, maybe expand/collapse the box > to save screen space and so on. Sounds better. However I have no idea how these templates with named parameters work. I've only used positional parameters {{{1}}} in mediawiki up to now and looking at the template-pages for Tag and Key it gets quite confusing. Marcus _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk