On Dec 21, 2007 8:33 AM, Abigail Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 21, 2007 5:28 AM, J.D. Schmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is it really necessary to go that finegrained down, in the definition of > > the landuse tag ? > > > > Certainly yes.
OK. But why not have different levels of fine-grained-ness? We could pair off the tags, such as landuse=industrial industrial=X That way, we group together related landuse types, and make life easier for many applications. For example, a countryside renderer may not care about the different types of industrial landuses, and want to render all of them the same without having to have a list of dozens of industrial landuse types. If we have everything in a massive flat taxonomy, then every application needs to know about every tag, no matter how specialist. But perhaps it'll all come out in the wash anyway, since someone will make an out-of-band hierarchy available to applications for pre-processing the multitude of tags. But an in-band heirarchy would be more useful, I believe. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
