On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM, Andy Allan <[email protected]> wrote: >> My first thought is to just have another couple of highway types ( a >> proposed highway and a highway under construction ) with a list of >> classifications in a choice input, and maybe some date inputs for when >> they are opening and so on. > > My feeling is that "proposed" is really not a type of highway, and > that eventually this tagging scheme will be replaced by something a > little less idiosyncratic: > > highway=tertiary > lifecycle=proposed
No, it won't, for reasons already explained by Nop. Moreover the current system has the distinct advantage that it can be used to describe what's on the ground - a stroke of a pen on a planner's chart isn't a slight variant of a secondary road, it's something else entirely ( a proposal ) and hence is a separate high-level concept. Similarly, if you stumble across a strip of gravel surrounded by men with shovels you can be pretty sure it's a road under construction, but you would need further investigation to tell what kind of road it might at some point become in the future. I think the tagging scheme isn't idiosyncratic but is actually well thought through, but even without giving a fig about tagging I don't want to see proposed/construction/actually-exists as a property on all the roads within p2. > Ok, first, I don't think the UI would be different either way. All the > code would be happening behind the scenes, to make a simple UI: simply > an extra dropdown on a "misc" tab or something. Which is actually a different thing. What I'm suggesting is that proposed and construction would be two more icons on the grid of road types, whereas you are suggesting the "lifecycle" should be a dropdown on every single one of the hundreds of thousands of normal roads. > Not to mention you'd need to duplicate all the road types for every > life cycle stage. You'd also need to add "proposed railway", "proposed > cycleway", "proposed foothpath", "proposed track", "proposed > bridleway", "proposed building", etc etc (and repeat for construction > etc). Pretty messy, no? Pretty unnecessary, imo. I think you're misunderstanding the current purpose of the "simple" tab - providing a simple UI for the majority of the mapping. Proposed buildings is pretty niche, and should be incorporated in a way becoming of its niche-ness. Adding dropdowns over every object for such a rare occurrence is the "messy" way. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ Potlatch-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/potlatch-dev
