[Tagging] Discussion about Multivalued Keys
moltonel 3x Combo
moltonel at gmail.com
Thu Jan 28 13:18:52 UTC 2016
On 27/01/2016, Colin Smale <colin.smale at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On 2016-01-27 22:54, moltonel 3x Combo wrote:
>> Concerning foo_1 vs foo vs foo:1, I this the last one can be safely
>> thrown to the idea bin (despite being used by seamarks) because ':'
>> clashes with namespacing, which is firmly established. foo looks
>> better than foo_1 to my programer eyes, but is has no technical
>> advantage (?) and I suspect that most people will find foo_1 more
>> pleasing, it's also one less character to type, less annoying to parse
>> with a regexp, and much more established in taginfo.
> Would you feel any different about your foo:1 example if it were written
> foo%1, avoiding any clash with namespacing?
I don't really care wether it's _1, %1 or , except that the first
one is already popular. But
> By the way, I am trying to maintain the distinction between the "suffix
> notation" where the index value is actually the final part of the key
> segment, and the "hierarchical/seamark" notation where the index value
> is a separate segment of the full key string.
As far as I'm aware, the "suffix notation" has always meant "suffix
within a namespace", not "suffix at the very end of the key". We
already have a significant number of "*name_1:*" keys in the db, for
> Maybe we should look at some technical use cases, like "in a navigation
> map creator, find all the categories for a POI" or "find the per-lane
> destination (and destination:ref and turn-lane stuff) information so I
> can construct a simulated road sign". Some will be done with a
> programming language, others may naturally tend towards SQL.
>> Concerning using '.' as a separator instead of ':', I don; t see what
>> it brings us, beside familiarity to users of some programing languages
>> (but change language and sudenly ':' becomes more familiar).
> Sometimes using a familiar character (such as the ":" here) with new
> semantics can lead to confusion. There comes a point when it is better
> to make a clean break so there is no confusion. Whether it is a colon or
> a dot or some other character is "detail" really.
Yes, but in the "lane.destination=Paris" example, you use '.' for
something (namespacing) that we've always happily used ':' before. I
don't see a need for the change, my best guess was "it looks more
familiar to users of some programming languages" but IMHO it's not
worth the confusion it'll bring to most people.
More information about the Tagging