On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 21:36:22 +0100 Colin Smale <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2015-11-11 21:26, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > > > On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 21:50:41 +0100 > > Joachim <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Many see _link only as slip roads. But using it for at-grade > >> junctions like described in the wiki has one advantage: _link is > >> usually tagged without a name because it connects two named roads > >> and has none itself. Using no link gives many warning in QA tools. > >> Using highway=residential plus noname=yes might be a workaround in > >> the current situation. > > > > False positive in QA tool is not a good reason to force everybody to > > handle residential_link, service_link etc > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > > The fact that tools don't currently support something is no reason to > oppose its introduction either. If it were, we would never be able to > change anything.
Note that I am not claiming that "tools don't currently support something" as reason to oppose introduction something. I was claiming that false positive in a QA tool is not a good reason to break nearly all existing data consumers using road network data. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
