On 20/10/2008 18:27, Matthias Julius wrote: > "Dave Stubbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The real question to ask here is what the "clean-up" is meant to >> achieve? Especially when the new tag does not really interfere with >> the old tag, what does forcibly removing the old tag actually get you? >> Perhaps a cleaner data model, or a smaller planet dump, but only in >> the extreme case where you actually succeed. And are these worth the >> instant breakage of tools you have nothing to do with? > > Unless these tools are intended to work on only a limited subset of > the data they will break as soon as someone enters some data under the > new tagging scheme. I don't think it is any better if a tool misses > half the gates in an area because they are tagged differently.
And ditto vice-versa: even if a script is run to update, someone unaware of the change will come along and add the old tag. If I were a tool author (which I am, of course, but namefinder is not interested in gates; however the same principle applies to any "deprecated" tag), for a widely used tag I would feel I needed leave the old one in indefinitely for backward compatibility in the absence of any enforceable standards. David _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
