On 04.04.19 13:33, Jyri-Petteri Paloposki wrote: > The feedback was quite limited and you or anyone else expressed no > definite stance against documenting the current practice.
At least in my case, that's because I expected my mail to be a contribution to a discussion that would (hopefully) end with a consensus. I did not interpret your original mail as a "call for vetos". As it stands, there was no response to the criticism in the original thread. Rather, a wiki page suddenly (from my point of view) came into existence, and had I not pre-emptively added that page name to my wiki watchlist, I wouldn't even know. But enough about past misunderstandings, and thanks for summarizing the discussion on #osm-fi. I can at least understand the reluctance to go with conditional restrictions in that case. I do still wonder about the reasons for ruling out the other alternatives, though. As I said before: > On 3.4.2019 19.40, Tobias Knerr wrote: >> Even if we keep "winter" in the key, the >> ":seasonal" should definitely be dropped. After all, we use >> maxspeed:forward (not maxspeed:directional:forward) and maxspeed:hgv >> (not maxspeed:vehicular:hgv). The pros and cons of conditions are more complex, but maxspeed:winter seems like a straightforward improvement: * It's shorter and simpler. * It follows the same format as firmly established keys like maxspeed:hgv or maxspeed:forward. * It's a bit easier for data consumers because keys like maxspeed:winter:forward are often handled by splitting at every ':' character, which would also break apart the "seasonal:maxspeed". So far, I believe, no one on this list has argued that maxspeed:seasonal:winter is actually better (as opposed to more common) than maxspeed:winter. Yours, Tobias _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
