On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Andy Robinson (blackadder-lists)<[email protected]> wrote:
> It will only be confusing if it's displayed to the use with the rest of the > data and I wouldn't want that either. The editing software just needs to > display bugs on a separate layer or whatever. Or perhaps even ignore them if > it's not an ap that needs to know about bugs. That's practically an argument for keeping them separate in the first place. For the same reason that we have trac for software bugs (we don't get people to add new bug reports in comments into the source files) we shouldn't put bugs directly into the geodata. Next thing we'd be doing something horrid to the tags so that I can reply to a bug saying "bug:151234:gravitystorm:20090715=I've been there, but it looks fine to me" and then building tools to parse all that stuff. The geodata tables are for geodata. We're already trying to prise the non-geodata tags out of the geodata (e.g. putting created_by on changesets). Lets not take five steps backwards by putting bugs in as nodes/ways/relations. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
