On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 at 14:20, Joseph Eisenberg <joseph.eisenb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, I agree that for something like landcover=hedge an even stronger > warning is needed. > Ironically, the stronger warning is necessary not because landcover=hedge is inherently bad but because it's not. Back in the day, when barrier=hedge + area=yes was proposed (if it was formally proposed), if somebody had suggested landcover=hedge instead it might have been accepted as better. Who am I kidding? If both those alternatives had been suggested at the same time, we'd probably still be arguing over them. :) If there were a formal proposal to introduce landcover=hedge and deprecate barrier=hedge + area=yes it might even succeed, although I doubt it. There are problems with landcover=hedge: 1) There is an existing, accepted way of doing the same thing. 2) It doesn't render on standard carto. Some people don't care about that, but I find it a useful way to check if I've made an error of some sort. After all, that is the reason standard carto exists: to check what one has mapped. Also, for those of us who see OSM as more than an intellectual exercise but wish to produce a map that is useful, we prefer that large obstacles appear on the map. 3) Editors don't support it. Of course, that is at the whim of the authors of those editors but they probably won't ever support it because there is an existing alternative. So it needs a strong warning. Up front. Before anybody spends time trying to figure out what it does and how to use it before getting to the warning telling them not to use it. -- Paul
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
