[Tagging] Are addresses ... objects vs attributes

Peter Wendorff wendorff at uni-paderborn.de
Thu Jul 25 14:27:41 UTC 2013


Hi André,
Martin wrote his objections to my interpretation of leisure and sports
and why these tags in particular don't fit exactly in the mentioned
case, but I'm not sure if he really wanted that to provide as an
argument to some kind of qualitative order of tags to be features or
attributes.

Let me give more examples of tags, that may be both (and where it's
completely valid that that is the case:

building=yes (or whatever value you want), combined with shop=* - is
such an object primiraly a shop or a building?  (and no: it's entirely
valid and common usage to tag both on the building outline) If you are
interested in shops, building=yes is an attribute for your shop (it's
[in] a building), if you're interested in buildings, shop=* is the
attribute (inside is a shop).

The address case is very similar, but already discussed earlier in this
thread.

tunnel=* or bridge=* on a highway: you may interpret both as an
attribute of the highway or as a feature (with the highway as going
through being the attribute)

A slightly different, but related case are attributes, that more or less
imply other tags, like crossing=* (e.g. crossing=traffic_signals),
implying highway=crossing. So: highway=crossing usually would count as a
feature, leaving the type of the crossing described by crossing=* as an
attribute of that feature, but on the other hand, at least when there's
no highway=crossing present (e.g. because of highway=traffic_lights),
crossing=* becomes THE representing tag for the crossing feature, thus
IMHO defines that feature.

I guess there are more examples to demonstrate this: There is no
distinction between tags describing a feature and tags describing an
attribute. In case you're a IT specialist and a programmer: Everything
is an object, even a name is - but it's up to the user/software/logical
interpretation, which of these objects speak for themself and which ones
are only useful or of interest as an attribute of another one.

regards
Peter


Am 25.07.2013 15:55, schrieb André Pirard:
> On 2013-07-25 10:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote :
>>
>> 2013/7/25 Peter Wendorff <wendorff at uni-paderborn.de 
>> <mailto:wendorff at uni-paderborn.de>>
>>
>>     > on a side note some of the values above like swimming are currently
>>     under the sport key, not leisure.
>>     > Typical values for leisure are pitch, track, stadium, marina,
>>     playground, park, garden...
>>     well, a pool that allows swimming, but is not useful for competitive
>>     swimming I would count as sports IMHO would better be leisure=swimming
>>     than sport=swimming, but I may be wrong here.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm opposing leisure=swimming as it doesn't fit (IMHO) into the common logics 
>> of the leisure key. Swimming is an activity while leisure usually describes an 
>> object (be it physical like pitch or formal/legal like a nature reserve). IMHO 
>> it would always be leisure=swimming_pool and you can put the actions for which 
>> it is suitable into the sport key (or another key if you don't like the sport 
>> semantics in some cases), e.g. sport=competitive_diving (or diving), swimming. 
>> If you are to map a small children's pool you might use either another "sport" 
>> like feet_dipping ;-) or another value for leisure (e.g. leisure=splasher_pool 
>> instead of swimming_pool) (personally I'd prefer another value for leisure, 
>> i.e. the latter).
>>
>> cheers,
>> Martin
>>
> 
> I'm glad that you come back to the heart of the matter which is to know whether 
> a key describes an object or an attribute of an object and that the keys 
> definitions in the wiki should indicate that, so that everyone agree and make a 
> consistent database.
> And we disagree indeed regarding leisure being an object. IMHO, there is no such 
> object as "a leisure".  In my example, we have an object "water=" that is used 
> *for* "leisure=", which is an attribute of the water.  And the type of leisure 
> is further described with fishing. Which of these two forms depends on our 
> decision that an object can be used for one or several types of leisures:
> water=basin  leisure=fishing  or leisure=yes  fishing=yes  in my case
> water=pool   leisure=swimming or leisure-yes  swimming=yes in your case
> 
> Now, regarding the fact that fishing= may mean several things, indeed and why 
> not. Fishing may be an attribute applying to leisure or one to a shop that's 
> selling fishing material. It's up to the wiki to possibly make a list of the 
> allowed attributes for an object or an attribute.
> 
> And now, regarding my practical issue:
>> Tag en conflit
>> Conflit entre les tags natural, leisure
>> way 180545448 rawedit josm
>> water = pond
>> natural = water
>> name = Pêcherie du Tultay
>> leisure = fishing
>> Erreur reportée le : 2013-07-23
> In my mind, the object is "water=basin", and, although it's not natural, Osmose 
> insists on calling it a natural, "natural=water" with an attribute I can find no 
> better than "water=pond".
> Then, like you, Osmose comes to say that the object is in fact a leisure: 
> "leisure=fishing".
> And that, as quite rightly two objects exclude one another, leisure excludes water.
> How then can we know in what we are fishing: a pond or a river?
> 
> Can we make a practical decision, to write in the wiki so that I and Osmose can 
> apply it?
> 
> My 2 €¢ are that it should resemble this:
> water=basin
> natural=no
> leisure=yes  (industrial=no)
> fishing=yes
> pay=yes
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> 




More information about the Tagging mailing list