[Tagging] fundamental structured tagging principles (was: ... amenity=boat_sharing)
A.Pirard.Papou at gmail.com
Sat Mar 29 19:38:02 UTC 2014
On 2014-03-29 13:41, nounours77 wrote :
> Hi everybody,
> As discussed in my earlier post, I think voting is important even for specific service tags to make them offical. Therefore, I extend the voting period for the boat_sharing proposal:
> The idea is to replicate the same structure for boats as for cars. To indicate where you can pick up a shared boat you reserved. I expect that service providers will mostly deliver this information, but we should agree on the format.
Don't believe those who advocate lack of coordination and chaos, they
might be paid by Google ;-)
Go ahead with your standardizations! Nice to vote.
But I think that general principles must be respected. A more structured
approach might me more rewarding.
A map feature must be made of an object having attributes.
An object is the more generally a building=yes or a shack=yes, an open
place or whatever "physical" (meadow, forest, landuse, tower, ...): it
is what is represented by the node, way or relation and that needs to be
rendered on the map.
amenity, shop, rental, hairdresser etc... are not objects but the
activity or other attribute taking place at the object.
There can be several attributes (e.g. shop and rental activities) for
the same object, not no two objects for the same map feature.
As discussed before, a building may be both a castle (château) and a hotel.
I have recommended that the wiki should clearly classify objects and
People have advocated that the street number is the object and that the
house (and roof) are the attributes of the number.
This is of course nonsense. The object is what is represented by the map
node, way or relation and that is a house or land ...
One may be interested in building a "view" (in SQL sense) by street
number key, but that does not make a closed way a number.
Or several numbers being represented by the same closed way.
Well known objects have a well known rendering, which solves the problem
of those complaining that amenity=their_invention is not rendered.
building=yes must always be rendered and it may be rendered differently
according to its attributes, e.g. amenity.
In practice, amenity, for example, is all-right, but it should not be
considered a mistake but rather a requirement to add building or meadow
or landuse, an object to it.
Semi-colon value separator
what;some;taggers;are;doing and that talking about it here are sins.
I'm nut sure I agree, but it suggests namespaces: a good idea because
it's more general and because it's already used.
So, we can have:
So, for your boat business, we would have things like:
building=yes | wharf=yes | whatever
shop:life-jacket=yes (rent or buy)
shop=yes (used alone for surprise selling)
and, of course, not excluding
and the beat goes on...
So, regarding your 1-2-3 choice, I think that # 3 is the good direction.
Please note that, regarding searches, shop, rental, boat, car, ... are
One may search for "rental" = anything to rent or "car" = any way to use
a car or "car rental" or "car sharing" specifically.
life-jacket, on contrast, is a single word.
Tags like car_rental, car_pooling, boat_rental etc... are annoying
because they multiply the same kind of wiki pages and propositions.
For example, I need tags to indicate places where subscribed pedestrians
can stop a subscribed car).
Do I really need to create a new "car_riding_on_subscription" page,
nobody would discuss that and I understand,
or would the following two riding:*, very agreeable additions to that
general framework suffice:
Logically, following that and one's reasoning:
post=yes (or stop-sign=yes, or whatever (to be discussed), that's the
map feature where the service takes place)
get-a-vehicle=yes (if felt needed, generic term for all those kinds of
activities, term off my improvable invention)
I would love to see you propose this general framework allowing your
boats as well as my kayaks and car riding.
As well as "Trains and boats and planes to Paris or Rome" with Billy and
I think you would be heard.
Hoping this can help,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging