On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:52 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, Andy Allan wrote: > > > > And full of frigging namespaces. > > > > Yes - I consider this a Good Thing.
Then we'll need to do our best to persuade each other :-) ! > > > british_trad = VS > > british_tech = 6b > > french = 6a > > > > Does the trick, nice and simple, no problems. > > > > But makes it less obvious to people who don't have a good knowledge of > climbing as to what the tags mean. If you have "climbing:grade:french" it > is obvious to *everyone* that this is some kind of grade for climbing - a > tag called "french" really does fall into the non-obvious category. Ah, I see the problem. You are taking a tag away from it's context, and then complaining that the tag has no context on its own. Only part of your argument is based around conflicts, but the rest seems to be context. How do I tell that name="The Duke's Head" refers to the name of a pub? I don't feel the need for amenity:pub:name= and highway:primary:name= in order to solve this issue. Instead, I examine the context of the original tag, and find that it is the name of a pub. french = 6a is meaningless on its own, I agree. But there is no reason to consider tags out of context. We don't need to for refs, or capacity, or difficulty, or grade, or anything else. This is where people run into problems on the wiki - you can't explain the meaning of the tag "capacity" in its own right, but you can in the context of car parks, bike parking, football stadiums and ski lifts. As for conflicts, every example I have seen is actually about conflicts of context, not conflicts of tags. So in a separate email you refer to timetables needing namespaced - I disagree. In this case it is not a word with two meanings that need to be separated; rather, it is that the context of the two timetables (one for postboxes, one for bus-stops) need to be separated. But this is still not an argument for namespaces, when we have other options (yes, relations) available - even for this most contrived of examples. So in summary, I think the "need" for namespaces is driven purely by people who want to view a tag in isolation yet still want to have context, when what they should do is not remove the context in the first place. Cheers, Andy osm:way:outdoor:environments:piste:lift:type:seated:capacity:hourly:2500 osm:node:outdoor:sport:climbing:ropedclimbing:crag:grade:english:trad:6a _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
