2016-06-22 13:18 GMT+02:00 Tomas Straupis <tomasstrau...@gmail.com>: > > I am generally against such harsh measures, if a new way to tag > > has advantages, it has them even if only 20% of applicable objects > > are tagged with it. And 20% endorsement isn't actually a fail IMHO. > > So after a new scheme to tag X is introduced we have two schemes > valid at the same time and if the new one only gets 20% in two years > you suggest to continue with TWO ways to map THE SAME thing? How would > you explain this to data consumers? >
the question is not "mapping the same thing", but conveying the same semantics, which is a whole lot different, and can rarely - if ever so far - be found. > > >> P.S. This only influences proposals which are CHANGING tagging. > > so it would not apply to the water tag, because it doesn't change > > tagging but is an amendment? > > Water proposal tried to change the tagging: > landuse=reservoir => natural=water|water=reservoir > that's really different, one is an attribute about the usage of land, the other is a feature for where there is actually water. > And in general all water landuse=x => natural=water|water=x (basin, pond > etc.) > waterway=riverbank => natural=water|water=riverbank > yes, the way riverbank was used in OSM is replaced by natural=water, water=riverbank seems a bad tag indeed, if still used for the actual river area and not for the riverbank alone. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
