I really don't get this ref= deprecation necessity.
------------------- Felipe Edwards Cerda On Tue, Jun 3, 2025, 02:46 Mateusz Konieczny via Tagging < tagging@openstreetmap.org> wrote: > No, it does not violate this rule. > > For start it can be treated as property of road. > > > Jun 3, 2025, 01:02 by ba...@ursamundi.org: > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 7:07 AM Greg Troxel <g...@lexort.com> wrote: > > António Madeira via Tagging <tagging@openstreetmap.org> writes: > > > What I meant is that even if that "ref=49" is wrongly associated to > > It does seem like someone is adding incorrect refs based on a > misunderstanding, and it would be good to have that resolved. People > with strong opinions doing wrong things and the db ending up that way is > an unfortunate part of OSM, but comes with the good parts of evolving > tagging. > > > It probably wouldn't be a bad idea to start formally deprecating ref=* on > ways. Ref to describe routes on ways violates the "one object, one OSM > entity guideline," and is one of the reasons relations were created as a > primitive in OSM in the first place. If the ref=* on ways dinosaur was > allowed to die the death it should have 15 years ago. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
