[OSM-talk] Several approved features moved to Map_features page
ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 22 18:13:56 GMT 2007
I can see your point. A green might be searched for because it is a green,
rather than becuase it is grass. The same could be said for listed
buildings, listed gardens, woods with bluebells in, woods with a certain
sort of mushroom etc.
This data has its place, but I don't think it should be intermingled with
the tags used to state the main elements of a feature, and use keys wich
could be used better. (i.e. landuse=livestock may be used on the vilalge
green for example). This, and the first 2 other examples are not phisical
things either, they are just information on how something wich 'is'
phisically there is used, or the status it holds. (' Non Physical ' as its
put on the wiki)
I think this addtional information needs a key of its own. "place" could
hold this data, but currrently is used for political bourders mostly it
would seem (although is muddled up with "boundary=" a little way up on the
same page). "local_place" 'area', 'place', 'use', 'note', 'misselanious' or
'info' could all cover these bits of extra information wich are more than
just descirption= (proposed).
e.g place=listed, place=village_green info=bluebells
I think the debate here is how to make a Key that holds this sort of data,
rather than how these tags should be squeezed into spots they don't belong.
Even if Village_green is used as a predefined tag it can't use up a key wich
may be used to correct/tweak how the area is labelled.
On the basis that there seems to be some agreement for the use of
natural=grass, and the others (wich all exsist already), should I add this
to the suggested tags page?.
What would this Key be? or would the examples above be under different keys
to each other..? A village green may be listed after all. so status=listed
place=village_green natural=grass access=yes landuse=lifestock
leisure=playground may work.
Rate your skiving credentials with our Slack-o-meter
More information about the talk