[Tagging] RFC - Bandstand

[Johan Jönsson]

LM_1 <flukas.robot+osm at ...> writes:
> 2012/3/11 Johan Jönsson <johan.j <at> goteborg.cc>:
> > leisure=bandstand is a good tag.
> > The bandstand is a prominent feature that is easy to map, so ease of 
mapping
> > with one tag is prefect.
> 
> Is this not bad, having more (independent) information in one tag? Imagine 
that
> person A - technocratic deaf engineer who hates music
> and
> person B - artist who loves music and does not care a bit whether it
> is inside or outside or anything about buildings.
> Both happen to be mappers: on cannot input the interesting
> construction without adding info about music, the other cannot enter
> music without construction.
That is the same reasons that I find this a good tag, whether you are type a 
or type b, you will know it is a bandstand and tag it with that. Easy. 

The type a-mapper could add more tags regarding architectural style, the type 
b-mapper could add more tags regarding music-style. If they do not want or 
know anything more, the tag bandstand is enough.

If per chance they do not know it is called a bandstand I guess there are no 
problems if they map it with pavilion or music_venue

/Johan Jönsson
p.s.
(As a generalist I would of course prefer if there where a tagging scheme for 
all pavilions and music_venues out there. building=pavilion pavilion=bandstand 
and music_venue=open-air_scene, music_venue:size=small or something like that) 
d.s.