On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Richard Welty <rwe...@averillpark.net> wrote: > ummm, does this type of semantic (with two inconsistent tags, one has > priority) > appear anywhere else in OSM?
There are lots of places where tag inconsistency can arise (eg, highway=cycleway, bicycle=no) but I'm not aware of anyone formally addressing the issue. > if not, this is a pretty significant change, one that really requires a > proper proposal > and vote. Yep. Perhaps I shouldn't have spoken, I was responding to the original question "does this have any use" - yes, it does. > if we just discuss this and don't do anything, then the addition > of unpaved > will simply stand as it is right now, without the introduction of these > semantics. We need to start getting a lot more precise about semantics, to ease the burden on renderer developers and make map data much more useful. > i might add that if we're looking at the introduction of new semantics in > order > to make adding unpaved=yes/no ok, it's going to take a great deal to > convince > me. It's not "adding" new semantics, it's *articulating* the semantics that probably exist anyway. At the moment, every renderer or other tool implicitly makes choices when confronted with inconsistent data. Often this will happen on the basis of rule priorities, or simply defining rules in a certain order. But the way inconsistencies is resolved is totally renderer-specific and that's not really a good thing. Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
