<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><!--[if !mso]><style>v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style><![endif]--><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-GB link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I personally try very hard to eliminate subjective tagging and often there is a solution can be found that is not.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>For example, retail units are normally distinguished (within the retail trade) by the area size. Easy enough to calculate approx. area from the OSM data so no real need to add anything extra.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Andy<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt'><div><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span lang=EN-US style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> Graham Jones [mailto:grahamjones139@gmail.com] <br><b>Sent:</b> 06 November 2011 15:12<br><b>To:</b> Craig Loftus<br><b>Cc:</b> talk-gb@openstreetmap.org<br><b>Subject:</b> [Talk-GB] Size - Importance of features - (Was Drinking Map of UK)<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Thanks Craig,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I think you are right - we can move the beer map discussion to the wiki. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>There is just one point I wanted to raise, which is more generic.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm'><p class=MsoNormal>My main remaining concern is the invention of the industry key.<o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>The issue we have here is trying to distinguish between the relative sizes of features (in this case breweries), which we are proposing to do by having 'craft=' or 'industry=' tags depending on the size.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I have a similar issue with other features - for example 'shop=supermarket' can cover a huge range of things from a single shop unit sized one, to a huge hypermarket - when producing a map you may want to give preference to the large, more significant ones so that these always appear, and the smaller ones only appear at lower zoom level, when there is enough space on the image.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>You get the same thing with historic features - you might want the big abbeys and castles to appear at low zoom levels and not be obscured by individual war memorials.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Therefore I wonder if another generic tag should be used to help with these things - for highways we use 'layer', but I think something else would be useful for other features a 'significance', 'size', or 'importance' value - probably a number like 'layer'.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>This will inevitably be subjective, but the wiki page for the feature could have some guidance on how to define the value.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I wondered what anyone else thought of this, or if something similar is already used in some places that I have not found?<br><br>-- <br>Graham Jones<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Hartlepool, UK.<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><hr size=1 width="100%" noshade style='color:#A0A0A0' align=center></div><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'>No virus found in this message.<br>Checked by AVG - <a href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a><br>Version: 2012.0.1869 / Virus Database: 2092/4599 - Release Date: 11/05/11<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>