[Tagging] Must/Should and Lawyering - Re: Divided highways, and not so divided highways, one way or two

[Florian Lohoff]

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 [1] 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:

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Node
"Where ways intersect at the same altitude, the two ways must share a
node (for example, a road junction)"

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:maxweight
"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 
> version.

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.

Flo
-- 
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...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20191010/cfe4ffdd/attachment.sig>