[Tagging] Merging tagging scheme on wiki pages of Hiking, route=hiking, route=foot and Walking routes

[s8evq]

OK, I'm not against transclusion. I think it makes sense. When the table is ready and nobody has further comments, I can have a look at how to do it practically.

To split it up even further so the table is useful for other route=... I'm a bit hesitant. I'm not sure if there's enough material that gets reused to warrant this extra technical complexity. I would prefer to focus first on harmonizing the walking/hiking pages. But afterwards, why not have a look into further abstraction and transclusion. 

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 13:11:36 +0200, Hufkratzer <hufkratzer at gmail.com> wrote:

> I would also prefer the transclusion (template) instead of just links.
> 
> It may be possible to split it up in and a part with more general tags 
> (e.g. name, ref, operator, distance, ...) that are also used with other 
> kinds of routes (e.g. for 
> route=running;bicycle;mtb;horse;piste;inline_skates), so that this can 
> be used there too, and in a part with hiking/walking specific tags (e.g. 
> network, educational).
> 
> On 13.08.2019 12:31, Paul Allen:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:52, s8evq <s8evq at runbox.com 
> > <mailto:s8evq at runbox.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add
> >     a link to it in the others?
> >
> >
> > A principle used in programming is "DRY."  Don't repeat yourself.  
> > Maintaining the same
> > code in two or more places will cause problems down the line when one 
> > version gets
> > changed and the other does not.
> >
> > Documentation is a little different, because you often wish the same 
> > information to appear
> > in several places.  This is the case where the documentation is 
> > extensive but people
> > assume that everything they need to know about a topic will appear in 
> > one place.   OTOH,
> > the desirability of not repeating yourself increases a lot when you 
> > have many translations
> > of the material.
> >
> > One way of handling this is a link.  Another way of doing it offered 
> > by the wiki is transclusion.
> > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion and
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion/How_Transclusion_Works
> > (the first of those two links transcludes the second of those links, 
> > just so you can see how
> > it looks).
> >
> > There are arguments against each way.  If you link to a full page then 
> > the poor user
> > encountering the link has to wade through that full page to find the 
> > table.  If you transclude
> > then those wishing to edit the page, or even the transcluded material, 
> > may find it
> > difficult to figure out how to do it.  You could, of course, put the 
> > table in its own page and
> > link to that, which avoids the editing problem and the information 
> > overload problem, but
> > still means more clicks and page loads are required than reading a 
> > page with a
> > transclusion.
> >
> > Up to you which one you go with.  Note that at some point in the 
> > future, somebody may
> > decide that whichever way you chose to do it was wrong and edit it to 
> > do it differently. :)
> >
> > -- 
> > Paul
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Tagging mailing list
> > Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging