On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:47 PM, Ciarán Mooney <[email protected]> wrote: > > I base this distinction on when you point at a cemetery and ask "What > is that?" a local will respond "It's a cemetery.", ask the same > question in a church graveyard and you get "It's a grave yard."
Fair enough. > I am happy to continue with the status quo, however I can see things > becoming increasingly difficult as the map becomes more complete. At > the moment these things are not worth worrying about as the blank bits > of the map require more attention (ie get it in the database first, > then worry about tagging it). I agree that the grave_yard/cemetery thing is, in itself, not a big deal. I am actually only commenting on it because I think it helps bring to the surface the reasoning/guidelines/principles that can help guide our (anarchic) tagging practices as the map becomes more complete, as you say, into the future. I disagree with the statement "get it in the database first, then worry about tagging it" - this is fine *as long as* whatever has been put in the database is meaningful and clear. Otherwise we end up with, for example, footways/cycleways that we have no idea whether we're allowed to walk on/cycle on :) > Again, I am happy to discuss the idea of a Working Group for Tagging > Proposals. Although it should probably go in another thread. I can't > find the old one. Yeah, I support any ideas for how to facilitate pushing forward the outcomes of discussions into implementation. An alternative to the Working Group is just to adopt voting more widely as a decision making tool. But as I said, yeah, let's try a few things out. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
