OK, I'm not against transclusion. I think it makes sense. When the table is ready and nobody has further comments, I can have a look at how to do it practically.
To split it up even further so the table is useful for other route=... I'm a bit hesitant. I'm not sure if there's enough material that gets reused to warrant this extra technical complexity. I would prefer to focus first on harmonizing the walking/hiking pages. But afterwards, why not have a look into further abstraction and transclusion. On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 13:11:36 +0200, Hufkratzer <hufkrat...@gmail.com> wrote: > I would also prefer the transclusion (template) instead of just links. > > It may be possible to split it up in and a part with more general tags > (e.g. name, ref, operator, distance, ...) that are also used with other > kinds of routes (e.g. for > route=running;bicycle;mtb;horse;piste;inline_skates), so that this can > be used there too, and in a part with hiking/walking specific tags (e.g. > network, educational). > > On 13.08.2019 12:31, Paul Allen: > > On Tue, 13 Aug 2019 at 09:52, s8evq <s8...@runbox.com > > <mailto:s8...@runbox.com>> wrote: > > > > Would it not be easier and more clear if we just keep one, and add > > a link to it in the others? > > > > > > A principle used in programming is "DRY." Don't repeat yourself. > > Maintaining the same > > code in two or more places will cause problems down the line when one > > version gets > > changed and the other does not. > > > > Documentation is a little different, because you often wish the same > > information to appear > > in several places. This is the case where the documentation is > > extensive but people > > assume that everything they need to know about a topic will appear in > > one place. OTOH, > > the desirability of not repeating yourself increases a lot when you > > have many translations > > of the material. > > > > One way of handling this is a link. Another way of doing it offered > > by the wiki is transclusion. > > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion and > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Transclusion/How_Transclusion_Works > > (the first of those two links transcludes the second of those links, > > just so you can see how > > it looks). > > > > There are arguments against each way. If you link to a full page then > > the poor user > > encountering the link has to wade through that full page to find the > > table. If you transclude > > then those wishing to edit the page, or even the transcluded material, > > may find it > > difficult to figure out how to do it. You could, of course, put the > > table in its own page and > > link to that, which avoids the editing problem and the information > > overload problem, but > > still means more clicks and page loads are required than reading a > > page with a > > transclusion. > > > > Up to you which one you go with. Note that at some point in the > > future, somebody may > > decide that whichever way you chose to do it was wrong and edit it to > > do it differently. :) > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Tagging mailing list > > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
