[Tagging] Tagging established, unofficial and wild campings
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Apr 3 06:23:07 UTC 2015
On 3/04/2015 5:05 PM, Marc Gemis wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:41 AM, Bryce Nesbitt <bryce2 at obviously.com
> <mailto:bryce2 at obviously.com>> wrote:
> Scout camps ARE landmarks often, and valid destinations, even if
> they don't offer services to the general public.
> This is not an argument to map it as tourism=camp_site, this is just a
> argument to map it. While I agree with the latter (mapping it), I
> wonder whether there are enough similarities with other camp sites to
> map them as tourism=camp_site
> Right now I have the impression that every new tag has to be super
> general and that you need to add dozens of extra tags to understand
> what you are actually talking about. ( a bit exaggerated, I know).
> When you make a map to show all camp sites, are you interested in
> showing the scout camps ? I doubt so.
> Why not just map it as leisure/tourism/... = scout_camp ? What's wrong
> with that ?
Wrong? Nothing I can see.
Best? Another question.
Some want top down tagging. Some want tags for green sheep with 6 legs.
What is best? Without a general statement of what is preferable no one
has any basis for a decision.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging