<html>
<body>
At 06:51 AM 18/02/2007, Richard Fairhurst wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Phillip Barnett wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><font size=2>Does anyone think
it worthwhile to invent a tag for National Trust properties, or is that
too UK oriented? It's nice to be able to see where NT properties are -
Ordnance Survey maps use the Oakleaf symbol to
indicate.</font></blockquote><br>
Not a bad idea, but I'd suggest you invent a value, not a tag - something
like property_owner (that's not a properly-thought-out suggestion, I'll
let the tag mafiosi work out the best one). That way, you could have
property_owner=National Trust, or property_owner=English Heritage, or
property_owner=Cadw, and get all the meaning without overly cluttering
the tag space.<br><br>
cheers<br>
Richard</blockquote><br>
That is not a bad idea. To broaden the issue slightly, what would
either of you use as the base tag? I've been following an "If
in doubt, use tourism=attraction" policy and then putting historic=
tags if possible and appropriate. That way I can capture anything
from bat caves to historic lighthouses in a consistent fashion.
Using in conjunction with a property_owner= tag means we could then also
identify chains of things like disney theme parks (or may be not as you
wish :-) ).<br><br>
And while we are discussing the subject, how are folks tagging
preserved buildings that are open to the public (large stately homes,
small preserved buildings in a town, lighthouses, ...)? The current set
of historic= values does not seem extensive enough. I thought I saw a
thread on this earlier.<br><br>
<br>
Mike<br>
Manila</body>
</html>