Am 23/mag/2013 um 23:17 schrieb Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org>:
> I think it is a legitimate design decision for an editor to not allow its > users to create such objects, as long as care is taken that the editor does > not silently alter the definitions of such objects that already exist. I agree if we talk about "an editor", but if we talk about the default standard main principal editor which iD will probably become I am not so sure (as this editor will somehow dictate a standard similar to how the main mapnik style does). For ways there might be few actual examples, and the railway=abandoned tag might maybe be better tagged differently, but for areas there are more cases where several orthogonal tags are the standard, e.g. amenity, man_made, building, landuse, landcover, natural, shop, tourism, leisure, .... (practically all keys have some values that might make sense to combine on the same area or point object). I agree that the biggest problem is that tags get silently removed, this could be solved by a dialogue where the user is asked what to do with the existing tags. In other cases there should be different objects for the same place, and it might make sense to create an relation to avoid duplication of geometry, e.g. if a user attempts to add a shop tag to a building, a multipolygon-relation could be created for the shop as there are good arguments not to mix shops and buildings on the same object (it would become ambiguous which object the attributes belong to, think of name, start_date, operator, even "architect" might belong to a shop...). Similar cases are tags intended for linear ways (e.g. barrier=fence) that get added to areas (e.g. amenity or landuse) where a MP relation sorts stuff out. cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
