[Tagging] tagging a point of interest of sorts
rwelty at averillpark.net
Mon Jan 3 17:27:43 GMT 2011
On 1/3/11 10:53 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2010/12/16 Steve Bennett<stevagewp at gmail.com>:
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Richard Welty<rwelty at averillpark.net> wrote:
>>> it depends on what an attraction is. i'm not averse to using it, but in the
>>> US at least, an attraction is usually some place you park, maybe buy
>>> tickets, and go in a building, park, etc for a more extended experience.
>> Yeah, but don't go thinking that every cultural stereotype surrounding
>> the word "attraction" has to apply to a tag of the same name.
the tradeoff here is that it's nice if tags do at some level match up
with expectations. as new mappers arrive, they don't have a history
of participating in these discussions and if we want them to stick
around, maybe we should avoid being contrary for the sake of being
>> Btw, historic=yes is another candidate. Of the existing tags, that
>> might be the best actually.
> IMHO those could both (the highway-marker and the dog) be tagged as
> landmarks. Both of them do IMHO not qualify for artwork and at least
> the marker is surely not an attraction (I guess also the dog is not
> really a tourist attraction, but this should be judged upon with local
> I found this page about landmarks, which seems to see landmarks only
> as stuff related to navigation on the water (I would ignore this or
> better amend the page):
i'd certainly prefer to see a more general definition of landmark which
applied to these sorts of not-exactly-an-attraction entities, as that
is certainly a normal usage of landmark.
More information about the Tagging