Dave F.: >> However, I believe that using a common key instead of >> disused/construction/abandoned/...=yes and distinguishing these using >> different *values* would have been the better alternative. > Common Key? Can you give an example? > > If you mean status=disused, I'm not sure how that get around the problem > of ignoring all other keys.
Yes, I mean status=*, and I'm aware that it doesn't avoid the problem - however, the problem would have to be solved only once for all possible status values. A check for status will filter out objects with e.g. status=planned, too, even if only construction, disused and abandoned were known when status was introduced. A check for c./d./a.=yes will not filter out planned=yes, thus increasing the required effort for monitoring tagging trends and adapting applications. Therefore, I'd consider a common key an improvement, but of course the problem of ignoring keys would still exist. The problem could only be avoided completely by using things like disused_KEY = VALUE or KEY = disused + disused = VALUE, but the widespread use of disused/...=yes seems to demonstrate that not all mappers like these. The idea was that maybe the common key approach could be some kind of compromise. As I said, though, I don't believe that an attempt to establish an alternative to disused=yes could be successful. Tobias Knerr _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
