Has this discussion died now and awaits re-revival in another two, three years? ;-)
Martin 2012/6/15 Eckhart Wörner <[email protected]>: > Hi everybody, > > let me try to summarize some parts of the discussion up to now. Hopefully > this won't become too biased: > * most people agreed that the syntax of the competing Access Restrictions 1.5 > proposal is quite complicated > * some people argued that it is important to separate syntax for vehicles > (hgv, bicycle, …) and other conditions, however, other people pointed out > that hgv could as well represent the condition "in a hgv" and the distinction > between vehicles and other conditions is arbitrary. > * most people agreed that every proposal must be complete, i.e. every boolean > formula of conditions can be expressed in it > * most people agreed that proposal should make the common case easily > taggable for humans, however, some people said that editor support is > required anyway and therefore the readability for humans does not really > matter > * some people argued that putting conditions into keys is a bad idea because > it allows for an unlimited set of keys, however, other people argued that > putting conditions into values is a bad idea because it pollutes the values > and might lead to ambiguities, since a value could be anything, including an > identifier > * some people argued that conditions syntax should look similar to human > language, however, other people argued that this would trick mappers into > thinking that human language can be used without paying attention to syntax, > and others pointed out that that a parser that has to be liberal about what > he accepts cannot spot errors anymore > * some people argued that any proposal should take existing tagging into > account > * most people argued that tagging should be human-readable > * some people argued that the syntax has to be similar to existing > programming languages, however, other people argued that this would just make > the syntax more error-prone > My favorite: > * a lot of people agreed that the Extended Proposals is "... already > used...intuitive and simple to use...complete...consise...extensible" > > I would also like to ask people not to blindly start new proposals, because > otherwise we'll inevitably end up with hundreds of proposals and no > conclusion at all. > > Eckhart > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
