On 10/01/2008 19:00, Robin Paulson wrote: > at this point, we will have a far better, more-rounded picture of what > is happening with tags, how they could be improved, etc.: > does namespacing need to be seriously considered? > should we have such a shallow depth of tags, or a more nested approach? > should railways and highways be joined into one category (this would > remove a lot of arguments.....)? > do we need to look at how we define permission son highways? > and many more > > at this point, i can see the tag system undergoing a major overhaul > > i think trying to make changes like you are suggesting while we are > going through such a period of rapid change, would be a mistake
I think a lot of the discussions we end up having are because we are forced to put a feature into a sometimes arbitrary or not-quite-right category. But why do we need a category at all? Might it not be better to simply say "this is a tram stop and these are its properties". Instead of highway=primary, ref=A1303, name=High Street we'd say primary_road(ref=A1303, name=High Street) [note: please don't think I'm proposing a syntax here, I'm just illustrating the concept - a concept which is not uncommon] And instead of pointlessly arguing over whether a museum is tourist or historic (a current proposal to change one to the other was circulated earlier), it would simply be museum(name=Science Museum) A tram stop is just a tram stop. A bus_guideway is just that, there's no need to argue the nuances of whether it is a railway-like feature or a highway-like feature - it doesn't then matter. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
