On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 2:26 PM, Andy Allan <gravityst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Richard Mann >> <richard.mann.westoxf...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> What purpose do the _link tags serve other than rendering? >> >> They can be used by routers to give more accurate descriptions... > That's a reason for calling them links, not a reason for tag-to-higher
Which, if you look closely, was actually the question you asked me. >> http://osm.org/go/0...@c9as- > Could equally well be tertiary_link. Oh. I see. Good discussion, I'm totally convinced by your reasoning. >> As I say though, it's a well used and well established scheme, and we >> should be very wary of changing it just because of some edge cases >> where the rendering doesn't work correctly or where a particular >> junction seems bizarrely tagged. > > I don't think this is robust to non-geek rendering (which I think is > going to kick off fairly soon). People are going to start rendering > their towns, and tag-for-higher (and the normal renderer's response of > putting links under everything) just produces too much of a mess, too > often. People will find ways round it (like ignoring the wiki), but > it's better to solve the issue, and issue rendering advice that'll > actually work most of the time. Solving the issue would be to fix the renderers for the edge cases you are so interested it. > I'm more than happy for the wiki to say that tag-for-higher was the > norm for a long time and you need to be aware that it will remain in > the data for a long time. But tag-for-lower is better. Tag-for-higher *is still* the norm, and certainly isn't going to change just because there's a few artefacts here and there in some of the renderers. Nor is it going to change just because you want it to. You need to explain, without referring to renderering *at any point in the discussion* why your solution is both conceptually better than what we have, and why your solution is worth all the hassle and confusion that such a change would cause. So far, I see nothing approaching the required level. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
