On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Steve Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is something I truely can't understand > - I would think that anyone would find more meaningful and non-conflicting > tag names to be easier, not more difficult to use.
You are taking what you believe to be true, and applying it to everyone else. But you already understand, and have probably already used, namespacing from other contexts. I can say from my experience of teaching IT concepts to very smart people (i.e. until recently I was an IT support manager at a large uni) that this namespacing stuff is a step too far for most people. My experience introducing other people to OSM would back that up. We know that simple tagging makes sense to many people. We know that namespacing makes sense to everyone in this discussion, and that many people who understand it *still* disagree with its blanket use in OSM. But you still persist. > I certainly respect all the views which have been voiced in the discussion. > However, given views on both sides I don't think there is a clear winner so > I see no immediate reason to change the proposal If you think there is no clear winner, then shoudn't the established conventions should take precendence? Otherwise it's just change for change's own sake, and that's a waste of time. Cheers, Andy _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
