[Tagging] Issues relating to URIs and tagging
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Tue Apr 1 17:01:40 UTC 2014
On 1 April 2014 17:31, Dan S <danstowell+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-04-01 16:29 GMT+01:00 Andy Mabbett <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk>:
>> last year's State of the Map.
> And well done indeed!
>> I've just modified [[Template:KeyDescription]] by adding
>> two parameters:
>> for "website" and "url_pattern"
> Tell me if I've misunderstood you, but you're proposing that the
> url_pattern given in the wiki "infobox" KeyDescription is intended to
> be machine-readable, in the sense that a third-party data consumer can
> plug url_pattern together with the actual key-values found in OSM and
> automatically find the URL for something? If so, the idea is
> intriguing and I think it's a nice lightweight thing we can do.
Yes; that's it.
> I have a small quibble which is please change it from "URL" to "URI",
> since I think the latter is the more appropriate concept. We're aiming
> to interlink _identities_ of items really, for the machines.
I'd be happy to do that; what do others think? While semantically
correct, I think more mapper might understand "URL".
>> The sooner we move that from "Talk:Proposed_features/" to "Key:", the better.
> Wikidata proposal looks good to me.
I'm about to move it to RfC. I look forward to your support ;-)
>> Other issues which are unhelpful to data re-users include keys with
>> missing documentation; redundant keys ("Key:openplaques_plaque" vs
> I have never seen these tags, but there are very few uses - this
> example is probably really easy to consolidate into one tag.
Yes; but it was just an example. Nonetheless, the former is the better
name, as OpenPlaques also has IDs for people and organisations, as
well as the plaques themselves.
>> ambiguous keys ("ref=1234" - ref in whose database?)
> That's an interesting question. "ref" is widely used, and generally
> used quite coherently, _but_ its meaning is contextual on other tags.
> For example, "amenity=post_box" & "operator=Royal Mail" tells you
> where to expect the ref to point. I wonder if "operator" sets the
> context in many other cases? (I accept, of course, that many objects
> aren't tagged with operator.)
Or the ref may not relate to the operator.
More information about the Tagging