Looks like a good idea - moved
Jan 24, 2020, 18:33 by derickso...@gmail.com:
> Rather than "Mismatching key names", what about "Counterintuitive key names"?
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:20 AM Volker Schmidt <> vosc...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>
>> OK,
>> my wording was intentionally provoking. But
Jan 24, 2020, 18:19 by vosc...@gmail.com:
> Human readability is a convenience, but is not reflected in the data
> structure at all.
>
I strongly disagree with this. Nearly all tags are human readable, with rare
exception
like extremely complicated opening hours or wikidata (where lack of human
Rather than "Mismatching key names", what about "Counterintuitive key
names"?
On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:20 AM Volker Schmidt wrote:
> OK,
> my wording was intentionally provoking. But this basic conceptual issue is
> at the base of many unnecessary tagging modifications.
> I refrained from
OK,
my wording was intentionally provoking. But this basic conceptual issue is
at the base of many unnecessary tagging modifications.
I refrained from adding the OSM version of the duck principle.
One of the items in the proposed page illustrates well why I think people
need to get the message
On Fri, 24 Jan 2020 at 09:12, Volker Schmidt wrote:
> Il ven 24 gen 2020, 11:51 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging
> ha scritto:
>> One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
>> and key text.
>> ...
>> It is created at
>>
These are no mismatches.
Keys and values are in principle arbitrary sequences of alphanumeric
characters. By convention we try to make them mnemonic by using strings
that somehow help us remember the meaning of the string. By convention we
use British English words for keys and values, plus
One of topics often appearing is mismatch between meaning of key
and key text.
Especially among newbies interested in discussions.
"why we use natural=water for man made canals?"
"why we tag man made beaches as natural=?"
"Lets migrate natural=water to landcover=water".
So far I was basically
