On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:31 AM, Jochen Topf <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 06:56:51AM +0100, Ed Loach wrote: >> Nathan wrote: >> >> > Would it make more sense to categorize by the tag? For example: >> > *FIXME:name=yes >> > *FIXME:maxspeed=verify that the entire road is 55 mph >> >> We don't need a proposal for this. It is such common sense that >> people do this already where it is appropriate (i.e. where more than >> one FIXME is needed on a single OSM element) : >> http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=FIXME#keys > > Its not common sense, its stupid. That way you make sure that your special > fixme tag is not seen by tools that look for the normal fixme tag.
I think this reflects a problem with such tools, rather than with the idea. > The value for the fixme tag is a free-text note. Although there are many problems which don't fit neatly into classes and are most simply addressed by a free-text note, that doesn't mean that all problems are best addressed that way. > You can just write: > "fixme=Not sure whether the name is right, verify maxspeed". Even better: > If you are not sure about the name and maxspeed, delete those tags. Then > its obvious that something is missing there and somebody will add it in due > course. No special tags needed. This particular example is one where I'd agree that the free-text note is suitable; but there are some specific characteristics of problems that I think are worth marking in a systematic (tool-readable) way; in particular: things that need to be verified on the ground stubs approximated routes that need GPS surveying e.g. joining two stubs that you know connect (perhaps rare) __John _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
