[Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization
johan.j at goteborg.cc
Thu Jan 13 17:37:03 GMT 2011
<robert at ...> writes:
> In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost
> at the end.
> Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It
> is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion
> tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of
> main tags like highway, cycleway and so on.
> syntax: <main tag> : <sub tag> = *
> Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub
> tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very
> I plea for introducing the sub tag ":type" for using on fortification,
> but also on e.g. museum (wild guess).
> (And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?)
> Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at ...>:
> > 2011/1/13 <robert at ...>:
> >> Why: fortification_type=hill_fort
> >> Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort
> > where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and
> > 0 fortification:type in the db.
> > cheers,
> > Martin
Probably a good idea Robert.
The main idea of my post was to show Ulf that using the proposed civilization
and civilization:period-tags shouldn't be any harder than normally. The example
chosen by Ulf was something that probably is dealt with in:
and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding the
Both of the wiki-pages above have plenty of.._type. Maybe a suggestion from you
on the discussion-page would come in handy.
If you look closely on my post, you can see that I had an alternative tagging
with tripple subtags:
and even another alternative with quadruple tagging
I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that.
More information about the Tagging