André, you're obviously bearing some grudge against "whoever makes decisions in OSM" because your suggestions have been ignored. That's fine, you can do that, but please don't run around and claim that just because you are unhappy with things,
> Consequently, the consensus was "we prefer tagging for the renderer". This is silly and you know it; no such consensus exists for any definition of the word consensus. > An alternative is for example using something like a rendered > "landuse=tourism" for features more specifically defined ... > I called that "generic rendering" and even that was refused (the > examples above are generalized existing tags). I don't recall at the moment but probably you made a suggestion that went "hey let's change everything to my cool new idea" and people went "nah" and now you're miffed. In fact such "generic rendering" as you call it does already exist in many places in OSM, here's a three-level example of a lake: http://www.openstreetmap.org/way/264574966 Of course using such tagging for everything would greatly increase the amount of redundant data in the database; the information that a turlough is a kind of lake, and a lake is a water feature, would be replicated thousands of times across our database (along with the theoretical liberty to tag a few turlough that are swamps instead if someone so desired). This is one of the main counter arguments to this style of tagging; it makes retrieving and processing information easier because more information is intrinsic to the database, but at the same time increases the data volume. > So, the general consensus answer is clearly "please do tag for the > renderer". You argue like a child who has been denied candy and now runs around telling everyone that obviously the "consensus" was that they should starve. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
