pelderson at gmail.com
Thu Feb 13 14:18:37 UTC 2020
Both options do not support established and documented tagging. The way to
manage this kind of change is to discuss a road to better tagging
while keeping rendering of the established tagging until this has been
accomplished. If retagging is a part of improvement, time should be allowed
to get this done. I would gladly participate in developing better tagging
if needed, and in doing the work according to a broadly adopted and
documented improved tagging scheme.
The current approach is quite different, non-cooperative and
Op do 13 feb. 2020 om 07:36 schreef Joseph Eisenberg <
joseph.eisenberg at gmail.com>:
> See a suggestion by Christoph at
> "If anyone wants to develop a followup to this change - i prepared two
> branches that could be helpful:
> "This implements the complete removal of rendering barrier=* on
> polygons - as discussed this would remove support for an in general
> inherently ambiguous mapping practice - which is however unfortunately
> widely used. It would provide a clean slate in terms of barrier
> mapping (leaving only the undisputed and consistently used mapping on
> linear ways) and would allow mappers to decide on an approach without
> being influenced in a counterproductive direction by this style. It
> would however also mean removing the rendering of several hundred
> thousand features currently rendered.
> "This adds barrier=hedge to the landcover layer and does not render it
> with the other barrier tags as a secondary tag on polygons any more.
> Functionally this is somewhat similar to a revert of this change - but
> it would do so cleanly and consistently with the other tags in the
> landcover layer. Note this means among other things having features
> with barrier=hedge default to being polygons, that any other landcover
> tag has precedence over barrier=hedge and that they are rendered
> within the normal way_area based sorting of the landcover layer.
> "I will not submit a PR for either of these changes at this time but i
> don't want to choke a potential consensus in either direction. If
> anyone wants to prepare and argue for a change based on either of
> these approaches that would be welcome and i would be willing to
> listen to their arguments.
> "What i would as said strongly oppose however is any change that tries
> to interpret the area=yes tag in any way on the style level beyond the
> decision of linestring or polygon on the data import level."
> Also see
> about that last question: should `barrier=hedge` closed ways be
> imported as polygons (necessary for rendering as areas) if they lack
> - Joseph Eisenberg
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging