On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 4:12 AM, Pieren <pier...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > >> If a feature can be either a closed way or an area, the default >> interpretation should always be the closed way. Otherwise, you'd have to >> know arbitrary defaults for each type of object. > > You have to know anyway if your feature can be either a closed way or > an area and therefore need some special handling in your apps. The > question is then more to consider certain features as "area" or > "closed way" by default. On this point, I'm always standing on the > contributors side and wont ask them to add an unnecessary tag for > 99.99% of the cases.
I don't mind asking them to (hence I don't mind the wiki saying that they *should* do so). But I do mind if people take the fact that the wiki asks them to as an excuse not to add area=no in the other 0.01% of cases. Or, in RFC-speak. I would be fine with "Users SHOULD add area=yes when mapping a railway platform as an area. Users MUST add area=no when mapping a railway platform with a closed way which does not represent an area." I'd prefer "Users MAY add area=yes when mapping a railway platform as an area. Users MUST add area=no when mapping a railway platform with a closed way which does not represent an area." though. If the (nonexistent) specs say that area=no is the default for railway=platform closed ways, the (nonexistent) specs are broken. _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
