<html><head><style id="outgoing-font-settings">#response_container_BBPPID{font-family: initial; font-size:initial; color: initial;}</style></head><body style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); background-image: initial; line-height: initial;"><div id="response_container_BBPPID" style="outline:none;" dir="auto" contenteditable="false"> <div name="BB10" id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;">A common schema does not need to imply keys which have to be the same for all type of amenities. I agree it that it would be hard to use. A common schema can be "you can use the amenity value as a key to refine a part of this amenity". It is what is done for cemetery sectors for instance.</div><div name="BB10" id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;"><br></div><div name="BB10" id="BB10_response_div_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;">Of course different schemas exists out there, but one can be promoted as a "default" schema to be recommanded when nothing is already documented or in obvious use.</div> <div name="BB10" id="response_div_spacer_BBPPID" dir="auto" style="width:100%;"> <br style="display:initial"></div> <div id="blackberry_signature_BBPPID" name="BB10" dir="auto"> <div id="_signaturePlaceholder_BBPPID" name="BB10" dir="auto">LeTopographeFou</div> </div></div><div id="_original_msg_header_BBPPID" dir="auto"> <table width="100%" style="border-spacing: 0px; display: table; outline: none;" contenteditable="false"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" style="padding: initial; font-size: initial; text-align: initial;"> <div style="border-right: none; border-bottom: none; border-left: none; border-image: initial; border-top: 1pt solid rgb(181, 196, 223); padding: 3pt 0in 0in; font-family: Tahoma, "BB Alpha Sans", "Slate Pro"; font-size: 10pt;"> <div id="from"><b>De:</b> dieterdreist@gmail.com</div><div id="sent"><b>Envoyé:</b> 25 janvier 2022 1:01 PM</div><div id="to"><b>À:</b> tagging@openstreetmap.org</div><div id="reply_to"><b>Répondre à:</b> tagging@openstreetmap.org</div><div id="subject"><b>Objet:</b> Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - boundary=forest(_compartment) v3</div></div></td></tr></tbody></table> <br> </div><!--start of _originalContent --><div name="BB10" dir="auto" style="background-image: initial; line-height: initial; outline: none;" contenteditable="false"><div dir="ltr"><div>if we had a common schema, likely using generic tag names, it will become more difficult to understand what they relate to, especially which level in the hierarchy, because the tag name will not refer to a word that is commonly associated with the thing that is represented. Why would we map cemetery sectors with the same tag as university departments, there will be more differences than just the naming "sector" vs. "department". Trying to find the one solution to represent all cases will slow the development of, or even prevent us from finding suitable tags for the domains where we still have scarce coverage.</div><div>We already have different individual approaches elsewhere (e.g. building:part vs. admin_level, parking spaces on parking lots, campsite pitches vs. camp site compounds, ...), hoping to introduce a comprehensive schema to uniformally represent university subdivisions, hospital structure, enterprise structuring and who knows what, from my point of view is not desirable, nor do I believe it is realistic.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,<br></div><div>Martin<br></div></div>
<!--end of _originalContent --></div></body></html>