On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > Most OSM tags are poorly named for a lot of instances. Personally, I've > learned to treat them like terms in a foreign language.
There's a lot to be said for this approach. The problem area is when a tag causes certain expectations of what it means. Whereas if it's a weird, unnatural word, you're more likely to use the official definitions. > Yep. Fortunately, there aren't too many ways which use both highway=* and > barrier=*. Yeah...but still. I'm not a fan of having "bicycle=no" mean two similar, but distinctly different things, when applied to different kinds of objects. There's no way everyone's going to remember those subtleties, and the different meanings will leak from one to the other. Technically, this approach possible. Pragmatically and socially, it seems unwise. And besides, it's just as likely that we'd want to tag the legalities of a barrier, as the practicalities. And then how would we do *that*? (I think. Maybe it only makes sense to tag the legalities of the things on either side: the park is vehicle=no, the path leading to it is vehicle=yes, maybe the barrier doesn't need a legal status marking.) Steve _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
