<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br /><br /><br />7. Jun 2018 11:53 by <a href="mailto:selfishseahorse@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">selfishseahorse@gmail.com</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">On 7 June 2018 at 10:46, Christoph Hormann <<a href="mailto:osm@imagico.de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">osm@imagico.de</a>> wrote:<blockquote>There are tons of established tags in OSM where the key makes no sense<br />at all. Don't get me started on 'waterway' for example. But that is<br />how OSM works. Get over it, accept that people have made bad choices<br />of keys when choosing tags and concentrate on encouraging and helping<br />people to choose suitable keys when newly creating tags (in a<br />productive way of course, not just by rejecting any idea as bad).</blockquote><br />And what's wrong with getting rid of these bad choices?</blockquote><p><br /></p><p> Cost, effort and confusion is not worth positive effects.</p><p><br /></p><p>Revolutions are really rarely worth costs.</p><p><br /></p><p>Making tagging more consistent is not one of this cases.</p><p><br /></p><p>Improvements are possible but not when it starts from "deprecate landuse=forest because it is not used to tag land use".</p> </body>
</html>