On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > >> Actually, I think that's a good example of the harmfulness in tagging for >> a renderer. We shouldn't have redundant data in the database, at least when >> this is at all feasible. >> >> > What am I missing? Of *course* we should have redundant data, and that's > exactly the right way to migrate from one set of tags to another. > I don't know what exactly you're missing, but the right way to migrate from one set of tags to another is to deprecate the old set and convert them over to the new one (possibly using bots), not to use them both simultaneously. > When the tags are truly redundant (widespread support for new tags in all > tools, all old tags accompanied by new ones), then we can mass delete - too > easy. > And what happens when you have two different tags which are contradictory? It also occurs to me that highlighting renderer support will encourage > migration to new tags. > The renderers generally support the old tags, not the new ones.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
