[OSM-talk] Changed highway=*_link meaning?!

[Konrad Skeri]

One possibility is to just use highway=link and then let the renderes
sort out the rest. A link is after all just a link no matter what it
connects, so there's really no reason for a *_link except when tagging
for the renderer, which we shouldn't do.

Konrad


2010/6/25 Lester Caine <lester at lsces.co.uk>:
> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
>>>
>>> >  highway=*
>>> >  link=yes
>>
>> actually I like this, but it's not the first time it is proposed here,
>> and I think you can hardly change tags used as often and for so long
>> time as this. It would probably end up in a similar mess than path and
>> footway.
>
> A number of the 'base' decisions would now make a lot more sense done a
> different way, but at the time there were very good reasons for choices
> then. With the amount of additional data now being handled, adding even more
> tags for some of the old basics while possible would just cause agro
> everywhere. Exactly as we now have in things like path.
>
> I don't know where the discussion on virtual tags got to? These are tags
> built from finer detail when using the data from a lower resolution. In this
> case of highway=x, link=yes would return the single tag highway=x_link and
> applications that do not need to bother with any other tags can carry on
> working happily with just the highway tag ...
>
> --
> Lester Caine - G8HFL
> -----------------------------
> Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
> L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
> EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
> Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
> Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>