[Tagging] Money transfer agents
sebastien.pierrel at gmail.com
Tue Nov 20 05:37:34 GMT 2012
On 20 November 2012 00:55, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com>wrote:
> 2012/11/19 Sébastien Pierrel <sebastien.pierrel at gmail.com>:
> > What do you think of money_transfer=agent +
> > Union"?
> I think it is pointless to have operator:money_transfer rather than a
> simple "operator". The tag should refer to the object that is tagged,
> and if it is a money transfer it will refer to that, also when you
> don't prefix it. I didn't check if it is western union that operates
> the office, or if it is a kind of franchise in which case it would be
> tagged as "brand=Western Union"
> I also don't share the idea that amenity is "over used". Could you
> explain the problem?
In my case, I wanted to mapped the local branch of a bank: amenity=bank +
name="Banque de commerce du Burundi"
That branch happens to be a Western union agent. Since this business is
primarily a bank, it should bear amenity=bank. Hence the need for another
key for this service. I think this is justified since money transfer agents
are rarely a business of their own, rather a service that other businesses
Also Western Union is not the operator of the bank.
I find the combo of values for a key with a semicolon (i.e
amenity=bank;money_transfer) extremely awkward. I don't
like amenity:bank=yes + amenity:money_transfer=yes much better either.
I'd rather have two nodes in a relation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging