On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > Well that got more of a reaction than floating a discussion on the > tagging list, didn't it? The tagging list was set up so that the main > list wouldn't be bothered with such stuff.
The tagging list was set up to save us all from the discussions surrounding tagging proposals and other minutiae of tagging discussions. Actions such as attempting to redefine the meaning of some of the most widely used tags in the entire project is, too put it mildly, outside the scope of that mailing list. > There's half a dozen unresolved items in trac, because the Mapnik > rules don't work, so you end up with gaps in casings where there > shouldn't be, and lower class roads rendered on top of higher class > link roads. It's significantly important to separate any complaints that you have with rendering from discussions on tagging. I have no interest in whether there are rendering artefacts such as gaps in casings in the current mapnik stylesheets. We have been using the given definitions of the tags since long before mapnik even existed! > So clearly not such a big issue that the talk list should be bothered with > it... There's a million random discussions in a dozen venues in the project. Simply because this particular discussion went almost unnoticed can't possibly be construed as a green-light to reverse the meaning of these tags. > So I look at the issue, consider the alternative rendering options > (links interwoven, links at bottom, motorway_links treated > differently), look at some commercial maps and see how they do it. And > come to the conclusion that the wiki is telling me to do something > wrong. So I change the wiki to give, in a succinct fashion, what I > think is the best advice for going forward, and one that's only likely > to improve matters. Clearly no-one's that much bothered, so it's a > small service to study the matter and write it up. Onwards and upwards > to better data and maps... You didn't really give "the best advice", you just decided that you knew better than everyone else, and made a change that affects 15,000 other mappers, hundreds of renderings and subprojects. A little more "due process" would be in order. > If there's a decent argument for tag-to-higher for roads between > trunk-tertiary, other than "we've always done it that way", let's hear > it. Preferably on the tagging list. The obligation on those who wish to change the meaning of such widely used tags is *entirely* on those who wish to make the change. You can't take an absence of discussion (given that many people have many more pressing issues to deal with) as consent for your change, nor demand that others need to justify *not* making such drastic changes. Especially since the root of the discussion seems to have no basis in the tags, and seems entirely to be around rendering artefacts that you dislike. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
