[Tagging] RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new key civilization

Robert Elsenaar robert at elsenaar.info
Thu Jan 13 19:38:11 GMT 2011


Certainly not like that. I will  start a new thread to discuss this idea 
more in detail.
I think there's nothing wrong when we try to standardize tags and have a 
moment of retagging when we have a 1:1 substitution.

-Robert-

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- 
From: JohanJönsson
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:37 PM
To: tagging at openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Tagging]RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new 
key civilization

<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
> efficient.
> 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 ?)
>
> -Robert-
>
> 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:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle

and

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site

and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding 
the
off-topic-tags.

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:

historic:civilization:period:bronze age

and even another alternative with quadruple tagging

historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age

I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that.
/Johan J





_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tekst ingevoegd door Panda GP 2011:

Als het hier gaat om een ongevraagde e-mail (SPAM), klik dan op de volgende 
link om de e-mail te herclasseren: 
http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1876&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 





More information about the Tagging mailing list