On 09/04/2014, colliar <[email protected]> wrote: > Please, read carefully, I only wrote "right" and not "right/left".
Why add a tag instead of reverting the way ? Care to give an example of a cliff or retaining wall that require two semantically-meaningfull way directions ? If you're not adding "left" variants, it means that you expect the data user to already know about the way direction convention. Expecting that he also knows about the right/left tag convention is putting additional (and unnecessary unless you can point to a counter-example) burden on the data user. > My hope is/was that left/right is more supported and maybe, to get rid > of tags depending on way direction (like the above and guard_rail which > I always have to look up). There's both editors (warn during reverse and auto-change tags) and data users (change rendering for example) to consider. * Editors can potentially support the tag convention without supporting the geometry convention, which is usefull when the editor didn't know that a particular way had a meaningfull direction. * Data users need to make a decision even if the left/right tag is absent. So for them the geometry convention is necessary but the tag convention is optional. My wild guess is that for cases like cliffs where you could use either convention, the geometry one will be better supported. For other cases like cycle lane of course, only tags will work. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
