[OSM-talk] Ditches

[Steve Bennett]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 12:25 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/12/15 Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com>:
>>> You could come up with sane defaults,
>> That's the right thing to do.
>
> Right is a preconceived notion, in this case it's the lazy thing to
> do, not nessicarily the right thing to do.

Carefully talking out what these "sane defaults" are, documenting, and
using them is not "the lazy thing to do".

> Frequent for which location/place? You are already making assumptions
> about what you consider as normal, not what is most common in the
> world at large.

Oh yeah, because the world is just *full* of triple decker bridges :)

(Not really sure what you were thinking there.)

> Humans tend to be lazy, the whole y2k bug thing, which was overly
> hyped anyway, wasn't due to lack of bits of memory for storing the
> full year, not just the last 2 digits, it was just human laziness that
> dropped the first 2 digits and this is a similar case, dropping a tag
> because it isn't seen as relevent at this exact moment in time.

So...following a documented convention that waterways are "below"
roads is akin to Y2K? I'm not seeing it.

Honestly, these same flamewars are recurring with alarming frequency.
I always seem to find myself on the opposite side of the fence from
people who (as I interpret it) enjoy tagging every possible detail as
thoroughly as possible. They get annoyed when people like me propose
working out the minimum number of tags required for a situation, and
following that scheme.

The best I can propose is that *you* keep adding the redundant tags,
and *I* will follow documented convention (assuming it *is* documented
- heh), and tag the minimum required. And hopefully one day someone
will figure out a way of cleaning up this mess.

Steve