On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:49:47 +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > API 0.6 broke backwards compatibility for editors (with the addition of > changesets) > API 0.5 broke backwards compatibility for editors AND renderers/routers > (with the removal of segments) > > So, any discussion about improving the tagging schema must not place > backwards-compatibility as a priority. We've been breaking compatibility > with our API updates and I don't think breaking backwards compatibility > with > respect to tagging is a catastrophe especially if the tagging schema turns > out to be more consistent and less ambiguous as a result.
Nobody is saying this is a catastrophe. Maybe we should drop highway=footway/cycleway and move to highway=path plus subsidiary tags, and break backwards compatability for old stylesheets etc. The question is one of process. The API changes are actually a nice example where a set of changes are discussed until there is enough agreement, consistently applied to the OSM API and the core tools, properly documented, and then the change is communicated through all available channels. Users the world over benefit from this professionalism. Users the world over would benefit from a similar depth of consideration in complex matters, and clarity about decisions that are well implemented, properly documented and widely communicated. Regards, Tom _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
