[Tagging] Dutch cafes
waldo000000 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 21 02:18:39 GMT 2010
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Matthias Julius <lists at julius-net.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ... To meet both problems you can only do this:
>>> egg & chips=yes
>> I like this approach.
> I don't. I don't want to revisit each place each week to see whether
> the menu has changed.
If a cafe is an amenity=cafe only if A, B and C, you would have to
revisit each week, anyway, to check that it's still A, B and C.
My point is that I like the approach of tagging A, B and C, instead.
> It would be
> foolish to assume that a café in Hongkong looks exactly the same as in
Yes...hence why I like the approach of tagging what you mean...
> Also, if you only tag the menu instead of categorizing the place you
> only put the burden on the consumer of the data.
I disagree. If a "cafe" is a concept that's easily defined and
internationally consistent, that's great, and telling the consumer
there's a "cafe" is great. But if it isn't, then telling the consumer
there's a "cafe" puts MORE burden on them to work out what that means,
than specifically telling them there's "a place you can get coffee and
> Otherwise you get 10
> icons on the map for each café (coffee, pastries, egg&chips, ...).
You don't have to render everything.
> you have to ask your router to guide you to a place where they have
> beefsteak, beer and rum if you feel like that.
That'd be great! I should mention that I'm not suggesting we
completely scrap the amenity=* tag - but if we're finding it hard to
agree on a definition of amenity=cafe, that would suggest to me it's
not a good tag! Can we agree on a definition for
amenity=food_or_drink_outlet, used in combination with the specifics?
Much more likely, I think.
More information about the Tagging