[OSM-talk] keys
Dean Earley
dean at earlsoft.co.uk
Mon Jun 12 23:13:23 BST 2006
Etienne wrote:
> On 6/12/06, *Dean Earley* <dean at earlsoft.co.uk
> <mailto:dean at earlsoft.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> > It also occurs to me that it might be reasonable to allow
> namespaces to
> > have some structure, so that, for example, Map Features can have
> > regional variants. mf.us:highway=freeway, mf.de:highway=autobahn
> . This
> > would allow local variations while still retaining some grouping
> of all
> > those schemes that have allegiance to the Map Features church.
>
> Personally. I think this is way overcomplicating things.
> It means renderers HAVE to know EVERY possibility in EVERY language to
> be able to show all data. This (IMO) limits a renderer to showing tags
> by authors using the same language.
>
>
> Renderers don't have to know every possible permutation of tag. They
> only have to know the tags that belong to the scheme that the user has
> chosen. If you don't use a namespace scheme then renderers *will* HAVE
> to know EVERY possibility in EVERY language. That is why you need
> namespaces - so that renderers do not have to know about every
> possibility, they just have to know about the one that they are designed
> to know about. If a renderer is designed/built to understand schema x
> then it can just ignore schemas y and z.
But then you ignore anything done in a different/unrecognised language...
From the example you gave, I'd already need to handle
mf.us:highway=freeway, mf.de:highway=autobahn as well as the english
version.
> We do however need some standard system across all languages
> (1,2,3,4,5,6?)
>
>
>
> What does (1,2,3,4,5,6?) mean?
Exactly.
It could be 1 (highway, autobahn, motorway, autoroute, freeway, etc..)
increasing as the roads/highways/routes get smaller. At least it is more
international than named road types.
--
Dean Earley, Dee (dean at earlsoft.co.uk)
irc: irc://irc.blitzed.org/
web: http://personal.earlsoft.co.uk
phone: +44 (0)780 8369596
More information about the talk
mailing list