On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:25 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett <[email protected]>: >>> You could come up with sane defaults, >> That's the right thing to do. > > Right is a preconceived notion, in this case it's the lazy thing to > do, not nessicarily the right thing to do.
Carefully talking out what these "sane defaults" are, documenting, and using them is not "the lazy thing to do". > Frequent for which location/place? You are already making assumptions > about what you consider as normal, not what is most common in the > world at large. Oh yeah, because the world is just *full* of triple decker bridges :) (Not really sure what you were thinking there.) > Humans tend to be lazy, the whole y2k bug thing, which was overly > hyped anyway, wasn't due to lack of bits of memory for storing the > full year, not just the last 2 digits, it was just human laziness that > dropped the first 2 digits and this is a similar case, dropping a tag > because it isn't seen as relevent at this exact moment in time. So...following a documented convention that waterways are "below" roads is akin to Y2K? I'm not seeing it. Honestly, these same flamewars are recurring with alarming frequency. I always seem to find myself on the opposite side of the fence from people who (as I interpret it) enjoy tagging every possible detail as thoroughly as possible. They get annoyed when people like me propose working out the minimum number of tags required for a situation, and following that scheme. The best I can propose is that *you* keep adding the redundant tags, and *I* will follow documented convention (assuming it *is* documented - heh), and tag the minimum required. And hopefully one day someone will figure out a way of cleaning up this mess. Steve _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
