[Tagging] noexit=yes (again) (and again)
bulwersator at zoho.com
Sat May 31 04:51:59 UTC 2014
noexit=yes on ways makes absolutely no sense and mentioning this tagging style on wiki suggests otherwise.
---- On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:16:29 -0700 André Pirard <A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com> wrote ----
On 2014-05-30 18:47, SomeoneElse wrote :
5388B60F.9080909 at mail.atownsend.org.uk" type="cite"> We had a long discussion in
and now I saw in the English wiki
"Use the noexit=yes tag on a way to indicate that the way is leading
to a dead end."
I really don't remember having a consensus about this (and thus this
info shouldn't be in the wiki).
Although many people including me were saying that noexit=yes is absolute nonsense on a way, Pieren was insisting very much to allow it that manner because people were tagging it that manner, but without saying what those people mean, if anything.
And he modified the noexit=yes page; "without consensus" as you say.
I am the person who, wisely I hope, split the page in two parts, "node" and "way" so that anything funny could be written under "way" without destroying the well agreed "node" part, which is sensible except that the term "noexit=yes" is a mistake bait: it should have been called something like "intentional=yes" (polite tournure for QA=shutup).
As we didn't know "what those people mean", I put it the only polite guess I could think of beside "nonsense"; "indicate that the way is leading to a dead end" while saying loudly that the least that could be done is telling toward which direction it leads to a dead end.
I was thanked and there was a single comment at the right time it was to make them: that "way" usage should be deprecated.
My own opinion is that all those "noexit=yes" should be bulk erased (with an explanatory message to the author) and that those QAs should do their job fully by reporting "noexit=yes" on nodes where they have no (false) error to report in the first place.
Pieren asked my reasons "for no way" privately, I replied (in French) and he did not reply further.
BTW, the only sort of explanation for a non-intentional=yes noexit=yes is indicating that it's not an unfinished highway. To which I replied that it's wiser to tag the unfinished highways visibly than to embark upon tagging every other dead end invisibly.
Consensus: I am asking it to replace in the "node" part "This tag is mainly useful" with "This tag is only useful", as there is no other explained reason than QA deterrent and because that phrasing leads taggers to invent other reasons.
Please state your opinion, of course.
5388B60F.9080909 at mail.atownsend.org.uk" type="cite">So edit the wiki to say that there's no concensus, and add a citation linking to the tagging list discussion?
As it is clearly understood, It's up to you and their dog to modify the "way" part of that page any manner you see fit, including the phrase you cite as long as it continues to contains the shunting word "way" (but hitting one's mates isn't allowed).
Why nobody did it yet is a deep mystery.
Notice that someone re-introduced, "because it has been forgotten" he said, the phrase "... at the end of a highway ..." to which I found necessary to add "... on the node at the end" and that is under "Usage" after all the very necessary warnings.
5388B60F.9080909 at mail.atownsend.org.uk" type="cite"> That would make the page more honest than it is at the moment.
Thank you for the word "honesty"!
Contrarily to the other ones, my change has been duly announced.
Please note that this is a summary of what has already been written and hopefully my last message about this.
5388B60F.9080909 at mail.atownsend.org.uk" type="cite">Cheers,
(who tends to use the wiki rather like a drunk uses a lamppost)
"Hello lamppost, what you knowing? I've come to watch your flowers growing ..." ;-) (Simon & Garfunkel)
message_exit=yes as they tag it ;-)
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging