> > For instance, the fact that maplint supports noname=yes and the > > validation: namespace and maybe one day the internal: namespace I've > > proposed is bad. > noname and validate are not really the same thing. "noname" say that > something does not have a name. The validate namespace is a lot more > universal in its goal.
Exact, but I was making a comparisson between * higwhay=residential * noname=yes and * higwhay=residential * validate:residential-without-name and * higwhay=residential * internal=noname what are the difference between those three ? appart from : > It aims to create a namespace for the selective > disabling of all possible valiation tests. That's what I don't like in the validate: namespace An object having no name is a bit more than just "disabling all validation tests" it's also an information in it's own, and I prefere proposition key that carry this information and validation tools taking action based on this information. ( Maybe those discussions might better fit on the wiki's validate proposal, if you don't mind using the wiki for that ) > "this does not have a name". But only the most common one(s). back to risk mentionned above > At least for the noname case the discussion has been going on for quite > some time and now consensus was reached. did you said "now" ?? Well, the "w" might be wrong there, no, I don't see a consensus here, neither a complete proposal, neither a vote on it, so maybe it's time to say "ok we now need to agree", but the "noname" page is a global page with many schema of wich I don't know wich to use > And so I went with the age old > pardigm of crowd sourcing "Just do it". So, let's break with this paradigm and make it : propose it -> do it -> re-talk about it -> change it -> put it on the map feature -> re-do it because the first "do it" has at least been done by you and me, but not based on the same keys, and that's bad > It's documented on in the commit message and the announcement on this > list. Could you please point me to the commit message ? are there anyway I can raise comment against it ? will that be deleted by "commit gardeners" ? On that list I just saw your message saying "It is working like this" but not "why is it working like this" > because I expect that it would get deleted > immediately by some wiki gardener anyway because I didn't wait for votes > first. Then I would immediatly undo any deletation of that kind, it has to be explicit, it has to be thought of, I would raise comment on it, we would probably agree on some things, and then we would both implement the same keys and save anyone pain. Looks you are an "against wiki" guy, while I'am a "for discussion" guy, and because the wiki is the only thing I know of public enough, I'm using it. This talk list is too hard to be usable by newcommers. But If you'r still against the wiki, I'have no problem continuing this discussion just right here, but fear we are bothering others. Let's start talking about : validate:residential-without-name why restrict that to residential ?, what about : validate:noname ? -- Sylvain Letuffe [EMAIL PROTECTED] qui suis-je : http://slyserv.dyndns.org _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
