[OSM-talk] Category:TagsSupportedBy

marcus.wolschon at googlemail.com marcus.wolschon at googlemail.com
Mon Mar 30 11:12:36 BST 2009


On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:03:14 +0200, Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de>
wrote:
> marcus.wolschon at googlemail.com wrote:
>> I added a category Category:TagsSupportedBy and tagged some pages with
it
>> as a test.
> 
> I'm not sure why you called the category "TagsSupportedBy" when you want
> to apply it to keys and especially relations, too. Wouldn't a simple
> "Supported by" or "Features supported by" or something like that fit
> better?

I'm not sure what you mean.
Nodes, Ways and Relations are identified by Tags.
If you apply a category to to a Key that this would mean
that all or at least all major values for that key are
supported.
Maybe we "Supported by" would be better.
I am against naming it "Feature" as a feature in the context
of an application is something completely different then a
feture in the context of a map. Thus it would create confusion.


> Also, I don't know why you left out spaces. CamelCase is, imo,
> less human-friendly.

Well... I'm used to writing names in CamelCase all day. It happens.

> 
> Except that I generally like the idea. I wonder, however, how we should
> handle "partial" support. Especially with more complicated stuff like
> restriction or multipolygon relations, many applications support only a
> subset of the possibilities.

Not at all.
It's not supposed to be perfect.
* The list of supported tags is never complete
* The list of values for a tag may change after adding the category
* The tag may not be supported in all cases or for all purposed or in all
configurations
This is mentioned in the individual category-pages.

Such a limitation does not change the fact that the tag is
evaluated at all and thus it makes sense to apply it wherever
it shall be applied.
  

> The only fundamental problem I see in the long term is the amount of
> applications that will be added to each and every page. This will
> potentially make categories unusable. Maybe it would be better to create
> templates to be used at the bottom of each page? You could get the list
> of supported features by checking template inclusions, and it would
> allow you to choose an appropriate style, maybe expand/collapse the box
> to save screen space and so on.

Sounds better. However I have no idea how these templates with named
parameters
work. I've only used positional parameters {{{1}}} in mediawiki up to now
and looking at the template-pages for Tag and Key it gets quite confusing.

Marcus




More information about the talk mailing list