On Jan 12, 2008 2:13 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > > The world has an infinite diversity and we can't go inventing new tag > > combinations for all of them. We need to think hierarchically, start > > with the real defining characteristics: land/sea/road/rail/etc and use > > subtags for the finegrained stuff. > > While this is true, it would not be necessary to stuff the hierarchy > into the tagging scheme. > > Suppose you say something like this (just an example, not meant as a > suggestion for real-world use): > > 1st level: natural=water > 2nd: water=standing (as opposed to flowing) > 3nd: standing_water=lake (as opposed to puddle, reservoir...)
I'm not sure that's the kind of hierarchy I meant, but I think there should be a top-level and stuff under that. A base-type + properties. I'm looking at it from the point of view of a tagger. As far as I'm concerned the difference between a dam and a reservoir is just a name and should be reflected in the name tag. Let's say I'm looking at a satellite image and I see a body of water. Is it a lake/reservoir/dam/blah? I don't know. Yet the proposed scheme forces me to choose one with a 2/3 chance of being wrong. Maybe its a type that has no translation in English, then I'm really SOL. I suppose what I'm contesting is the statement that natural=water is deprecated. It covers all the impoartant properties needed for 99% of users. If somebody cares about details they can add them but I object to me being forced to care. Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://svana.org/kleptog/ _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk