[OSM-talk] Proposed feature for noname

[Christoph Böhme]

Gervase Markham <gerv-gmane at gerv.net> schrieb:

> Christoph Böhme wrote:
> > The other solutions made so far essentially suggest to add a
> > negative image of the world to the database: Not only saying what
> > is there but also what is not. Consequently this would mean to tag
> > streets not only with the features they have but also with
> > oneway:absent="yes", cyclelane:absent="yes" and so on to indicate
> > that someone has checked that a feature is definitely not there. 
> 
> That just doesn't follow at all.
> 
> You are claiming that having a tag for "no name" is a slippery slope
> which leads to a tag for "no special lane for tractors" or whatever.
> Why should that be? I don't think the slope is slippery at all.

I admit that my examples were a bit extreme. Although, the suggestions
for possible applications of a global :absent tag in the
noname-proposal at least point towards the slippery slope.

> So having a "noname=yes" (or whatever - the syntax is unimportant for
> this discussion) absolutely does not mean you need a "nopostbox=yes"
> or a "notractorlane=yes" tag.

I agree that syntax is not an issue here (albeit different syntax can
suggest different ways of using a tag, as you using no*=yes in your
examples compared to me using *:absent=yes in mine demonstrates ;-).

My argumentation was about the two different concepts underlying the
noname/absent/... and ignore-test tags. Both solutions yield the same
results and do not differ much in their implementation in a validator,
but from the point of what type of information is put in the database
they are very different. I think, we should at least consider this
differences and their effects before putting the whole noname thing
down as merely a syntactical pernicketiness.

(I am sorry if a came across a bit overly determined in my last e-mail).

	Cheers,
	Christoph (Xoff)