[Tagging] bicycle=no

Roy Wallace waldo000000 at gmail.com
Fri Dec 18 21:08:44 GMT 2009


On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Nice analysis :). But just because this may be "all you care about",
>> it doesn't mean it's an appropriate set of categories to use for
>> tagging.
>
> Roy, I understand your position. You've stated it numerous times. If you have a new angle you'd like to share, then please do. But you don't need to keep restating your position - it doesn't advance the discussion.

Fair enough. So how about we look at this bit: "Sure, you might be
able to save a couple of KB's in the database by using your
conglomerated, fuzzy categorisation scheme, but I think you'll find it
won't solve the current problem."

What is your response to that? In particular,

1) What do you think has caused the current problem (i.e. tags like
footway/cycleway/bicycle being used with inconsistent meanings)
2) Do you think your proposal will solve the current problem? If so, how?

I don't think you've demonstrated yet how or why using different fuzzy
categories would fix anything - that's what I'm trying to prompt you
to think about, so we can advance to the next step.




More information about the Tagging mailing list