On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:52 AM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Gervase Markham wrote: > > > On the other hand, feedback of the form "I don't like this proposal > > because it doesn't cover situation X, but I can neither provide a > > real-life example of X in the map, nor can I design a scheme which deals > > with it" is not helpful. > > In the long term, this might be helpful - known problems with the proposal > can be noted in the wiki for future reference. This doesn't mean the > proposal shouldn't go ahead and be approved, but it does mean that the > problems with it are documented and can be fixed at a later date if > someone figures out how to do it and/or if it actually starts becoming a > problem. > > I'm convinced that, where possible, we need to do a global update of the > database when tags get depricated to try and reduce the amount of > depricated stuff that could be replaced with a better solution. (And I > fully accept that some stuff _can't_ be automatically fixed up to newly > approved tagging scheme - in these cases there needs to be a good way > to alert people responsible for mapping an area that there are some tags > that should be manually fixed up). > > The problem I see with having a long-term mix of depricated and new tags > is that the rendering rules get progressively more complex since they have > to deal with both tagging schemes in order to have a complete map. > > - Steve > Well, if we're serious about deprecation, then that just means at some point those tags are no longer rendered or recognized. Flagging those deprecated tags with a validator would be a good first step. Karl
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
