Public discussion This is a public discussion in Tagging forum.
Simon Dale replied 10 years ago.
I think these tags should be put at the cliff level rather than the crag level.
Would it be possible to put things in words at the crag level rather than tags, where the tags do not apply consistently. Misleading tags is not so good, especially when you consider that this information will be published over many different channels (eg app, pdf, etc).
We did consider tag negation when first designing the tags, but concluded the complexity was not worthwhile. That being said we often re-assess if this is what users really want.
I have added a discussion issue here:
Showing all 2 messages.
You are not part of this discussion.
Melwin Quacke started this discussion 10 years ago.
Some more thoughts on tags
Some nitpicking: If a crag has parts that receive sun all day, and others that don't, should I still tag it as "all day sun"? From my point this would make sense, so a crag can have the tags "all day sun" and "always shady" at the same time. Perhaps this could somehow be clarified in the tagging docu. Inheritance generally makes sense to me. However, it would be great it inherited tags would be graphically distinguished (I know, hovering or when editing makes it clear), but if inherited tags would be displayed somewhat smaller, grey, or in quotes it would make things clearer. Especially in the abovementioned context this makes sense: I tagged a crag with some walk-off routes as "walk off". Now all routes inherited this tag, which may lead to a wrong conclusion when just looking at single routes.
New tag proposition: - Shade at base (as before, I'd argue for "yes" and "no" to distinguish missing information from negation)