Micha Ruh wrote: > 2010/1/16 Jean-Marc Liotier <j...@liotier.org <mailto:j...@liotier.org>> > > I tried to > replace "building=collapsed" with "earthquake:damage=collapsed_building" > > Please don't, it's useless, if not harmful. > > Why do you want to replace a simple, understandable, well established, > broadly supported tag with something THAT complicated? > > It's ok, that another tag with the same meaning exists due to imports, > but please DO NOT change well known and used tags with another one > coming from an import. > > Especially not when the new tag is 35 chars long. Try editing that in > potlatch.
Take a look at tagstats : tag value uses node way building collapsed 1,045 747 298 earthquake:damage collapsed_building 1,473 1,465 8 We have two tags to describe the same thing. One is apparently more widespread, more conformant to published standards and semantically superior. What do others think ? Is tag length such an issue ? Doesnt autocompletion solve the problem of tag length ? Is it desirable to standardize ? Isn't it harmful to have two tags to describe the same thing ? Is the value of harmonization inferior to the value of not disturbing habits taken in the last few days ? Do we have past experience or a policy for such things ? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
