douglas.furlong at gmail.com
Mon Sep 15 14:06:01 BST 2008
2008/9/15 Gervase Markham <gerv-gmane at gerv.net>
> Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > The absence of a name property from an object is not generally
> > significant (how many of our objects have a name - probably less than
> > 5%). Those that don't have a name simply don't have a name and it works
> > well for editors and renderers alike; nobody has ever even thought of
> > issuing all of them with a special tag documenting the absence of a name.
> > The absence of a name becomes only significant in the context of a
> > certain check we run on our data, which operates on the assumption that
> > roads of a certain kind usually bear a name.
> I agree that the absence of a name is only significant in certain
> contexts for certain types of object - primarily roads. But I don't
> think it's just about "tests" - is the noname map a "test"?
> The fact that this is mostly only a problem for names, and mostly only a
> problem for roads, makes me think that we have to look carefully at the
> trade-offs between a specific solution such as "noname=yes" and a more
> complex, general solution such as "test_ignore=name_present" which, you
> will have to admit, is not as obvious a tagging scheme!
> But still, if people are going to object to name=none, and think
> noname=yes is too specific, then I'd much rather have this than nothing.
Personally I would rather see noname=yes being used, then name=none, as that
could very well mean the name of the road is "none".
I just think that solution is messy.
noname=yes may be slightly more obscure, but I think overall it's the
cleaner solution (of the two).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk