cairnswk wrote:thenobodies80 wrote:...
This a gray area. I mean, if it's simple to define a basic map, when it comes to moderate or complex is not so simple to create a tag system that fits for everyone. From a coding point of view it's just add so np, the issue is the criteria to use ....

And that has always been a subjective challenge...there was great discussion some years back when Coleman and I were mods in the foundry, and yes the challenge was that everyone had differing views including mapmakers on what was moderate or complex.
A suggestion might be to have all "classic" maps with no frills xmls as "basic", and then two more groups defined by the xml types as fitting into the moderate or complex groups.
e.g. ranged attacked, one-way borders, starting positions bombardments etc as moderate
and somethings like killer neutrals, buildings, etc as complex
Well, if you want to avoid any subjectivity (thereby avoiding debate and, consequently, delay) you could just have two categories. Basic for no frills XML and everything else is not basic. "Not basic", obviously, not being a great name for the category but you get what I mean. While I don't think anyone would consider one-way borders "advanced", you're right, they're not
absolutely no frills XML, which is a clear, objective, dividing line.
I don't really know, but I would imagine that the subjectivity of attempting to define what is merely moderate and what is complex is least a part of why there has never been any map categorization. And it sounds like a Gallery update is coming soon so, if you want any kind of category system in there, it may be best just to simplify for now. If, that is, you think that even a simple system is better than no system at all.