On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Nice analysis :). But just because this may be "all you care about", >> it doesn't mean it's an appropriate set of categories to use for >> tagging. > > Roy, I understand your position. You've stated it numerous times. If you have > a new angle you'd like to share, then please do. But you don't need to keep > restating your position - it doesn't advance the discussion.
Fair enough. So how about we look at this bit: "Sure, you might be able to save a couple of KB's in the database by using your conglomerated, fuzzy categorisation scheme, but I think you'll find it won't solve the current problem." What is your response to that? In particular, 1) What do you think has caused the current problem (i.e. tags like footway/cycleway/bicycle being used with inconsistent meanings) 2) Do you think your proposal will solve the current problem? If so, how? I don't think you've demonstrated yet how or why using different fuzzy categories would fix anything - that's what I'm trying to prompt you to think about, so we can advance to the next step. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
