[OSM-talk] No_comments=yes

[Ben Robbins]

>While in general I am all for having tag keys and value be created in
>some logical way, sometimes it makes more sense to be just practical.
>And words like "feature" and "structure" seem to be much too broad for
>any kind of classification. They can apply to almost anything, so using
>them here for bridges and tunnels doesn't really get us anywhere.
>
>Here is a different suggestion going the other way: We could use the bridge
>and tunnel keys for actually naming the bridge/tunnel. It is quite
>common for bridges or tunnels to have names. Those names are distinct
>from the names of the road which goes over the bridge or through the
>tunnel. Currently there is no way to keep those apart. So I suggest
>having
>
>bridge=Waterloo Bridge
>
>or
>
>tunnel=Gotthardt Tunnel
>
>This has the advantage of beeing backwards compatible. bridge/tunnel=yes
>just gets the new meaning of "name unknown or non-existent".

For your examples you have stated the name.  So its name=waterloo bridge.  I 
am talking about simply stating that it is a bridge.  Yes structure and 
feature are broad.  That is the point.  Thats why its a proposed Key, not a 
value.

>If the bridge and the road have different names then they should be
>different ways, no?

Yep, although in the way I do bridge, thats not a problem at all anyway.

Bridge=suspention and all its other forms can still do under 
feature/structure if nessesery as they are just different forms of a bridge, 
just as primary and secondary are just differnet forms of a highway.

The is very little consitency at present.  I wouldn't be objecting to the 
xyz=yes style if that is how all tags work, but they don't.  This just 
appears to be a new lazy way of adding things without worrying about 
grouping things to make the standised tag page usuable, and logical.

Ben

_________________________________________________________________
Get Hotmail, News, Sport and Entertainment from MSN on your mobile.  
http://www.msn.txt4content.com/