[Tagging] geology taggin?
ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Wed Nov 17 22:22:28 GMT 2010
Am 17.11.2010 21:43, schrieb M∡rtin Koppenhoefer:
>> It is accepting that semantically different things can reside under the same
>> key and that this doesn't cause any problems - except for people like you
>> that seem to think that a systematic approach is a value in itself.
> it depends what you implicate with "creating problems". If you invent
> a new value, it is not clear where to put it, because there is no
Of course there is a logic, it's just a logic that you don't like and
therefore deny to recognize ;-)
> What about valleys. Say you wanted to put a valley in the db.
> Is this natural? Maybe yes, as long as it is not artificial.
So what's the problem?
> If you
> make presets for an Editor, you will have to filter the values by what
> they express, some are geographic features, others are physical
> landcover features, others are even different things.
Some may think about a specific feature being more of a geographic
feature, some a physical landcover and some may not even get the
distinction between the two. This complicates the life of all ;-)
You are implying there's an "obviously correct way" to make these
distinctions, which is not the case. If you take a look at:
the "physical landcover" would be bushes for me and certainly not trees.
You may disagree.
> This complicates
> the life of all: mappers, especially new ones as well as application
While I was working to improve the JOSM presets, the more detailed the
(sub-)menus became, the harder it was to place specific items into the
right menu - let alone to find the right group boundaries (aka menus) at
all to remain understandable.
The more groups (aka keys) you have, the harder it gets to understand
and remember each boundary (aka the rules behind it). The more detailed
each specific group is defined, the harder it get's to place a new item
into the existing groups, e.g. it may fit into two definitions or none
More information about the Tagging