Am 06.01.2011 23:47, schrieb Simone Saviolo:
Think of the "Windows Vista Ready" (pfft!) certification: it didn't
mean that that software/device was of better quality than another one
without the certification, but if you were planning to use it with
Vista then it had better characteristics than the other one.
If I'm right, I remember the problem of that (or a similar) labelling
approach Microsoft made, because the buzz feature of the new system
mentioned on the label was the Aero Look and Feel, but one label
mentioned the new system as running, not making clear Aero was NOT
supported - only the core system with the old-style interface.
Something like that is my fear at your approach, as long as there is no
way to counter this issue.
[...]
If application 2 doesn't support C, then it won't get the cert. If I
study engineering and pass all exams but one, I won't get the degree.
I may be better, much better than someone who does, but I won't be
allowed to advertise me as an engineer.
well - I see that as a problem not only at OSM, but we don't have to
make mistakes already common practise in other areas.
What's the goal of these certificates? Advertising possibility for
the application? "this printed map of Las Vegas supports core 1.1,
cycle 1.34, foot 4.12 and boat4.4"? Add as much "features" to the
feature list as not applicable to the used bbox to get more plus
points?
The idea is to simplify communication between consumer developers and
users, so that users don't have to go through the wiki to have an idea
of whether a map is good for them.
yeah...
the Opening-hours-Map [1] made by Netzwolf uses the mapnik tiles.
Therefore supporting all details of addresses, you can say: displaying
housenumbers, street names, postcodes, city names and country names.
But there is no search feature, so "supports address 1.0" would be
misleading, I think.
regards
Peter
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
