On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 6:04 AM, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: > I assume that this is a misunderstanding, because I don't think anybody > was suggesting that area=yes should be used together with tags that are > unambiguous anyway. My suggestion, and current practice as far as I can > tell, is: > > * If a tag can only be used on areas, or only on ways, you don't need an > area tag. > * If a tag can be used on both areas and ways, the default > interpretation is that it is a way, and area=yes is required to make it > an area.
>> On the other hand, a fenced field is landuse=* (and in this respect >> implicitly area=yes) and barrier=fence (and here implicitly area=no), >> and that's fine. > > Actually, that particular style of using barrier=fence has always been a > bit of a hack and it's probably not the best example of clean tagging. > > But since landuse cannot be used on ways, and barrier=fence cannot be > used on areas (well, it can, but then it is treated as a "this area is > fenced" attribute and not as a very wide fence), this is again not an > example where area=yes or area=no is required at all. Now I'm confused. The wiki says that almost all the barrier=* types can be used on areas. So applying your rules above they would also require area=no. But this seems to be an exception? So it seems we're already at the point where we have to "look up the default for every tag". And I'm not even sure where we can look up this default (apparently we have to look for an always-area tag somewhere in the code for your renderer? _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
