On 9 July 2014 00:05, Daniel Koć <dan...@xn--ko-wla.pl> wrote: > W dniu 08.07.2014 20:04, yvecai napisał(a): >> However, if rendering is an interesting topic, wiki is full of >> rendering examples and advices that aren't followed anywhere. Let the
> You don't even realize how sad is this observation for me... > > What is the role of writing documentation than - and approving it or > declining? You can always use the tags as you like it, and they will be > rendered this way or another (or not a all), so why waste the time proposing > and documenting? I think it's best to think of it as a two step process: first propose the tags that describe the reality (here), then propose how they should be rendered (on the openstreetmap-carto Github). That said, I also don't have problems with a rendering paragraph in the proposal - as long as it's clear that it's meant as illustration of the proposal, and not (directly) as a proposal to change existing rendering. Both tagging and rendering discussions are already difficult enough as they are - separation of concern simplifies the discussion (also, some people are only interested in rendering and others only in tagging). I think your rendering proposal makes sense by the way, but as I said, it's a two step process. Tagging and rendering decisions can (and should) be made independent. > But inside the project I think we need some more coherency. If there's an > approved proposal with rendering hints, at least the default render should > take it into account. I don't think that's necessary, see above. > And I see the difference in scale of peaks type, which should > be properly visualised to not make default map cluttered with unnecessary > details (like https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/issues/689 > ). Yes, I agree this needs to be solved. -- Matthijs _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging