[Tagging] Extremely long Amtrak route relations / coastline v. water

[Dave F]

On 22/11/2020 11:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> [cross-posted to talk-us@ and tagging@, please choose your follow-ups 
> wisely]

If you go against the accepted principle of not X-posting on a 
newsgroup, you've no entitlement to lecture how others respond.

>
> Brian M. Sperlongano wrote:
> > It seems that we are increasingly doing things to simplify the
> > model because certain tooling can't handle the real level of
> > complexity that exists in the real world.  I'm in favor of fixing
> > the tooling rather than neutering the data.

Actually, splitting way because software can't handle it, is making the 
database more complex.

>
> I sincerely hope "I'm in favor of fixing" translates as "I'm planning 
> to fix", though I fear I may be disappointed.
>
> More broadly, we need to nip this "oh just fix the tools" stuff in the 
> bud. (etc)

Likewise we need to stop software developers from expecting contributors 
to add data purely because they can't be bothered/not competent enough 
to write a few lines of code. (OSM-carto demanding boundaries on ways & 
numerous routers expecting multiple foodways to criss-cross pedestrian 
areas, are just two examples)

Contributing to the database (also *volunteers*) are expected to map to 
a certain standard. There shouldn't be a reason to expect develops not 
to do the same.

Desiring relations to list in their entirety is *not* a "0.1% case". 
Splitting them into 'super relations' should not be the desired, final 
solution.

If developers are offended at receiving suggestions on how to improve 
their software, or even have it criticized, then they should rescind it.

DaveF
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20201122/0df338f4/attachment.htm>