gdt at lexort.com
Sun Oct 8 22:33:20 UTC 2017
Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com> writes:
> Perhaps we could reach consensus more easily if we were
> to first try to agree that the goal is to tag both physical character
> and regional importance, and recognize that the two serve
> different needs, and are (in the US) often grossly mismatched?
> Then the discussion could revolve around the question of what
> tagging is for physical character, what tagging is for regional
> significance, and what are objective criteria for assessing
> significance. (It's somewhat subjective, and therefore
> contrary to the OSM spirit of "tag what is visible only on the
> ground", but it's so necessary to getting mapping and routing
> right that I think we have to grasp that particular bull by
> the horns.)
I think that would be a great step forward.
The elephant in the room, though, is that the behavior of the default
render is considered extremely important, and I think a lot of the
debate is at least somewhat tied to controlling how that comes out.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 162 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Talk-us