[Tagging] Historic huts
stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Apr 1 10:25:54 UTC 2013
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 7:37 PM, Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com> wrote:
> We all know "don't tag for the renderer" mantra, repeating it is
Or at least repeat it with the appropriate nuances: "Don't use
semantically incorrect tags to achieve a short term goal based on the
current behaviour of one particular renderer."
> I'm pointing out that this is neither objectively an
> attraction nor a shelter,
To the extent that tourist attractions "objectively" exist, most of
these huts would qualify. Not sure I really want to argue this point
> Sure you can micro map it, but it's really too much work to tag it like this:
I'm not sure how many of these huts there are - maybe 100 or so. It's
not really a question of "too much work" - I'm happy to add whatever
tags are necessary to make the data useful to the widest range of
renderers etc. They're very small though, and usually outside the
range of high quality imagery, so not likely to get mapped as areas.
> So you are probably going to end up with a one node solution, one
> could also call it
> name="Smith hut (ruins)"
> note="historic feature built blablabla see more about smith huts"
Yup. (Although probably not "ruins" and "weather_shelter" on the same hut...)
> My view is that many tags in OSM are either too specific or too
> general, alpine_hut/tucan crossing/pelican crossing/basc_shelter are
> to specific and tourism=attraction might be too general. Going after
> Steves description I'm not sure I would like to discover this when I
> went to find a hut.
Yeah, that's the cultural expectation thing I referred to earlier.
Australians do not expect to find staff huts when they go hiking, and
interpret hut symbols on maps appropriately. (And it still confuses me
every time I go hiking in Europe!) IMHO this is ok - semantics can
vary slightly by region. No?
More information about the Tagging