[Tagging] Must/Should and Lawyering - Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two
f at zz.de
Thu Oct 10 14:44:07 UTC 2019
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 02:28:51PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:
> 10 Oct 2019, 10:44 by f at zz.de:
> > And i see fit in the original "Conventions" document  which terms
> > it as "Divided highways should be drawn as separate ways." for divided highways.
> > First - "should" is a relaxed term which is no MUST and second -
> > it does not make any statement about
> OSM Wiki is not following RFC 2119.
RFC2119 is just formalising and explaining English for
non native speakers in this respect.
> Generally accepted rules are usually
> stated as "should" and similar.
"Generally accepted" is correctly mapped to "should".
But there are others which are really a must:
"Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a
node (for example, a road junction)"
"You must explicitly specify the unit if it is not in metric tonnes."
So the English language is used appropriate in the Wiki.
> And in case of lawyering - the same page
> is (from what I see) not forbidding
> other mappers to revert to single way
It does not even talk about non divided ways beeing mapped as seperated
ways. So if lawyering correctly this whole discussion is moot because i
dont think there is a place in wiki talking about ways without a divide
to be mapped as 2 ways.
Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Tagging