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

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Mon Apr 6 15:49:19 BST 2009


On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM,  <marcus.wolschon at googlemail.com> wrote:
> 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.

so when you see the amenities tag, split on ';' or whatever, trim the
result and insert a row into the database/file store for each result.
it doesn't seem that hard to me.

in any case, it seems like the "amenities" key suggestion is rejected
by all sides. certainly no-one is using it in the wild.

>>> 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?

the impression i got from "the current namespace ...
transition-period" was that you intended to run a bot continuously
over the data to keep amenity=xxx and amenity:xxx=yes in sync. sorry
if i misinterpreted - as long as it doesn't involve bots, i don't mind
:-)

>>>> 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.

the people seem to have already decided (see blackadder's email).

>> 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.

and ask some of the water to turn into gold, so you can go buy a pump. ;-)

cheers,

matt




More information about the dev mailing list