[OSM-dev] JOSM: Several tags with same key

[marcus.wolschon at googlemail.com]

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 20:09:40 +0100, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Marcus Wolschon <Marcus at wolschon.biz>
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> maybe what we need is an "amenities" tag specifically for multiple
>>> co-located amenities?
>>
>> I strongly disagree.
>> That is even harder to parse then the ";".
> 
> please explain.

Because it means you have 2 tags instead of one
and the "amenities"-tag would need a separator like ";" anyway.

My use-case is the search for all instances of a given amenity.

>> Stefan:
>> I really do like the "amenity:bar"="yes" -aproach.
>> The current namespace of "amenity" is preserved,
>> an automatic adding of the new name to every place
>> with the old one is possible (to have a transition-period)
>> and it does solve the problem.
> 
> bots are strongly discouraged - if you want people to start using your
> tagging suggestion please ask them.

Guess why I suggested a voting, announcement on talk and some
volunteering moderators? If a voting ends in favor for it, then
the mappers have shown to want it, if not they have opted for
the consequences (amenities sometimes not identified as such or
incorrectly and slower bug-fixing/feature-adding in every piece of
software using them as the developers have even more work to do.).

>>> i think its better to describe the tags which are actually in use,
>>> rather than proscribe the tags which are allowed.
>>
>> There is a problem with what people are tagging and there
>> needs to be a change to this tag to solve it.
> 
> no, people are tagging as they see fit. the problem is that, in some
> very rare situations, it is difficult to parse. this is not a problem
> that needs an invasive solution.

That is for the people themself to decide.

> 
>> This calls for a proposal on the "Key:amenity" -page with
>> a voting announced on talk.
>> As the issue affects so many there will be a few people
>> needed to play moderator on the Talk-page. Else this may
>> end like the "license"-discussion on the talk-list. (Hearing
>> the same thing repeatet over and over again without getting
>> anywhere until the threads died.)
> 
> unfortunately, as i'm sure we're all aware, trying to change an
> established convention is like trying to push water uphill ;-)

Simple thing, ask the water to cooperate by freezing and if it refuses
stop other actions until you have build some buckets.

Marcus