[Tagging] geology taggin?

Ulf Lamping ulf.lamping at googlemail.com
Wed Nov 17 21:34:08 GMT 2010

Am 17.11.2010 21:29, schrieb Elizabeth Dodd:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 21:11:18 +0100
> Ulf Lamping<ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>  wrote:
>> It is accepting that semantically different things can reside under
>> the same key and that this doesn't cause any problems - except for
>> people like you that seem to think that a systematic approach is a
>> value in itself.
> There are good reason for keeping semantically different things in
> different groups.
> 1. the new mapper.
> I remember trying to work out, with multiple wiki pages open, how
> something was described, and then tagging it. It took forever, and then
> the editors improved their presets and I remembered more of them.

Funnily, I (to some extend) was the one that improved the JOSM presets.

> I
> challenge you to explain to a new mapper why cafe is under amenity and
> bakery is under shop, when they live in an area where bakeries include
> cafes as their normal state.

You are asking why semantically different things (a place to eat&drink 
vs. a place to go in, buy something and go out) are placed in different 
keys? How does this correlate with your first sentence?

Fine example, as amenity was soooo crowded that we had to split the 
shops away from it, creating another key that seems to cause confusion 
here. This example is exactly the result of such an approach to 
"semantically sort" things and it's possible negative side effects.

> 2. finding if someone has already described this item or not
> When items in the real world haven't got an OSM tag, how do I find the
> comprehensive list of features and search it?
> So there are shops that sell building bricks. Outdoor display area,
> with brick walls to show the bricks for sale, and a little office for
> the salesperson. Shop? Amenity? Light industrial? Office?
> If we don't tag with rational schemes we will have multiple duplicate
> tags simply because people can't find the place where the tag was
> placed in the schema.

You are probably mixing up rational and semantical grouping. I've simply 
argued that a rational scheme (aka a scheme people can 
understand/remember) isn't necessarily a scheme that groups along a 
semantical boundary.

Regards, ULFL

More information about the Tagging mailing list