Kevin Kenny <[email protected]> writes: > Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were > to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character > and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve > different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched? > Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what > tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional > significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing > significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore > contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the > ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing > right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by > the horns.)
I think that would be a great step forward. The elephant in the room, though, is that the behavior of the default render is considered extremely important, and I think a lot of the debate is at least somewhat tied to controlling how that comes out.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
