[Tagging] Hiking route abandoned

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Wed Oct 2 16:45:27 UTC 2013


2013/10/2 Fernando Trebien <fernando.trebien at gmail.com>

> Renderers often don't support life cycle tags, but that doesn't matter
> because we don't tag for the renderer/applications, right?



This is nothing particular about renderers or routers, it is generally a
flawed approach to add tags like the so-called "life cycle" tags to change
the meaning of other tags (e.g. instead of a restaurant you'd express that
there once was a restaurant or similar). Opposed to this, the prefixing
makes it quite safe to asume that these objects won't be misinterpreted.

I think there is a misconception about what is expressed with the "don't
tag for the X" paradigm. The idea behind this is: do not use a tag that is
actually rendered (or used in a routing engine) for something different
than what the tag was intended for (just to make it appear, or to achieve
in certain conditions the same behaviour even if the tag meaning is
different). This doesn't imply we have to structure our data in a way that
makes the evaluation particularily difficult or easy to get it wrong.

cheers,
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20131002/63198e97/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Tagging mailing list