[Tagging] is tourism a good category for everything cultural?
simon at bleah.co.uk
Tue Aug 24 07:32:18 BST 2010
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:49:51AM +0200, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/8/22 Claudius Henrichs <claudius.h at gmx.de>:
> > tourism=artwork
> > + artwork_type=sculpture
> because of the quote above I'm raising the question: is tourism a good
> top-category? I think in many cases it is not. Even hotels are only
> sometimes related to tourism, while others are related to business.
> The wiki states: "Places and things of specific interest to tourists"
> IMHO neither artwork, nor museums, nor picnic-sites and the least zoos
> are "of specific interest" to tourists.
There’s an argument that things that tend to appear on tourist
information materials and road signs for tourist attractions (brown
signs with white text in the UK), but…
> I'd very much like to see a toplevel-tag cultural (and probably
> another one accomodation).
…in principle I agree with an “accomodation” key, although I think
cultural is too generic. I’d like to see a move away from overly‐
generic top‐level keys.
It might be useful to define properties of certain keys outside the
tagging in the database, for example to describe “business people use
Key:accommodation”, “tourists use Key:accommodation”, or specifically
for a tag “Tag:X=zoo is a tourist attraction”. (Any similarity to RDF
triples is not a coincidence ;) )
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Tagging