Hi. I've just updated the page to remove roles specification.
The specific roles chapter became a specific elements one since it gives useful recommendation to map elements. Nevertheless no roles remain on it as for not confusing mappers. If there are no formal suggestion or comments left, I would go on with focusing on examples on proposal's page and directly in OSM to see what does it look like. It would be important to test associations of tags on practical situations, wouldn't you? It's obviously out of question to rename tags massively but 1 or 2 power plants may highlight problems. You may have a look to Hoover Dam next to Las Vegas, Nevada or this changeset http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/15642946 (I'll update it later to match last proposal modifications) to see dispersed facilities. Such changesets would be reverted if proposal is rejected after voting. Cheers. 2013/4/9 Alberto <albertoferra...@fastwebnet.it> > > This is where I still don't understand you: why do I need to specify > > that > >> a feature XXX has the role XXX? Why do I need to specify, that a > >> generator is a generator? A substation a substation? A dam a dam? A > >> valve a valve? A weir a weir? And so on. > >> > > > > This is just because a role must be specified. > > > > > Why do I have to specify a role? > > Yes, roles can be omitted. In some existing types of relations members > haven't a role. > In this case we can omit them. > Viking81 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > -- *François Lacombe* francois dot lacombe At telecom-bretagne dot eu http://www.infos-reseaux.com
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
