[OSM-talk] [RFC] Deprecating the use of Tag:highway=stop in favour of Key:stop

[John Smith]

--- On Thu, 27/8/09, Roy Wallace <waldo000000 at gmail.com> wrote:

> You're asking why should we tag things explicitly? Because
> we're
> building a database. A huge, complex database that's used
> by lots of

That's just a straw man argument, you keep building the same thing up again and again but it keeps blowing away the first sign of a logical argument.

Besides, I asked you personally why you cared, why do you care, or how will it benefit you personally how a stop sign is marked?

Unless you can answer that question logically without all the hand waving and implications about how there might be a problem, you really don't have a good argument.

> different people and software all over the world. And as
> I've said
> before, fudging a solution always seems like a great idea
> at the time
> (e.g. "oh, this'll do the job, it's easier, and it's good
> enough - why
> bother doing it properly/explicitly") - until it breaks due
> to
> unforeseen circumstances.

Utter hand waving and doom and gloom.

I'm yet to see any situation that tagging roads properly, eg number of lanes, and tagging a single node will fail. Please provide a valid example of a situation where a proximity based searching will fail.

> Please listen to me. A requirement to stop *intrinsically

No you listen to me and stop trying to envoke emotive arguments when you have no rational or logical ones to back your position.

> involves a
> way AND an intersection*. A requirement to stop **IS** an
> interaction
> between a way AND an intersection. This is why I would
> suggest using a
> relation. Not because a relation is easier for software,
> but because a
> relation describes the **nature** of the thing to be
> described.

Utterly useless hand waving about doom and gloom, but absolutely no substance either.

> But hey, I'll go along with the majority in whatever's
> decided.

Yet another straw man argument that has no basis in fact or logic because you seem to be siding with a vocal minority, the majority has never spoken on such issues.