[Tagging] Shop vs amenity
61sundowner at gmail.com
Mon Aug 24 12:11:43 UTC 2015
On 24/08/2015 8:40 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 24.08.2015 5:30, John Willis napisał(a):
>>> On Aug 24, 2015, at 9:03 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The solution for me is to move shops that are in "amenity=" to "shop="
>> Any retail establishment should be in shop=*
> Great! Thanks for your responses, especially for the background, which
> explains a lot.
>> Basically, The scale has changed drastically.
> "Mind the scale" became my mantra at OSM!
> That's why I think everybody should at least try some micromapping
> (close to z=19) - it shows you the whole mapping process from a
> different side! Things like general "mapping highways for router" or
> lack of some features (land with a "hole" inside, that may be many
> different things which are not yet mapped or even don't have tagging
> scheme) starts to be instantly apparent.
I have been adding 'residential areas' lately .. boring ... but it
improves the map for people who don't know how big a place is. Been
doing it at say a deca scale .. managing to see each house. As I said
Now doing it at a kilo scale, hoses are about 2-4 pixels. I can do lots
of the larger towns/cities this way. Not as accurate as I'd like but I
can get more done .. and others can add the detail if they want. So I do
both ends of the scale ... benches in parks and gardens, rubbish bins ..
and upto city wide areas. Both have their appeal. The detail is most
usefull for people that are there, the larger stuff for planning.
>> Any town sized amenities with an area to denote grounds (school,
>> hospital, golf course, etc) should move to Landuse to follow the other
>> major landuses.
> +1! Seems rather logical to me to mark area as landuse and leave
> "amenity" for buildings or points inside.
I'd rather say ... leave "amenity" for things that are _not_ shops,
buildings nor landuse.
>> Theres some holes in that idea, but it is better to patch those holes
>> than keep letting amenity get stuffed with more and more disparate
> There are many holes in early ideas, but it's natural and the only way
> to fix them is through discussion and practice.
> Now it gets really interesting: given that more people than just us 3
> ;-P wants to have more coherent tagging system and approves such
> migration, how should it be done? I guess we have no procedures for
> such important and big changes yet. We're ready for adding new
> features, but not so much for changing already existing - especially
> well established ones - and I think we will really need it one day
> (even if not this time).
There have been changes in the past ...
transport 'routes' have changed .. as have power distribution things ...
> One way I can think of could be by massive, automatic adding a new tag
> (amenity=car_wash -> amenity=car_wash + shop=car_wash) to let people
> remove the old ones gradually, because it could be less intrusive than
> any kind of conversions. It will be not always possible, because some
> objects has already some shop=* tag added as a primary/secondary
> feature. On the other hand it would help some objects tagged as
> amenity=feature1;feature2 to become amenity=feature1 + shop=feature2
> (if feature1 is not considered to be a shop in a new take and feature2
> should be shop indeed). The downside is it could take years to
> complete and in the meantime everybody using our data should implement
> additional code to deal with both forms, because there's no clear
> point to jump to the new scheme and leave the old cruft in the dust.
shop= needs work too .... some shops sell more than one category of
things. And some mappers want to have more detail. I'm thinking about
it. Just another on the list!
> It would be probably better to reach some consensus and make the
> conversion in one go, since the change is pretty straight (like
> "s/k=amenity/k=shop/g" for some objects). It has another pitfall,
> however: OSM is rather big ecosystem than a single project, so we
> should send the message that we plan to make such change, but I don't
> know what channels should we use to make it really heard. It also
> means we accept possible breaking some stuff outside, because there
> always be some not actively maintained services which people still
> use. But at the same time that would also mean we're able to evolve
> rather than simply grow and it would make people aware that they need
> to check the news once in a while.
> What do you think about this problem?
The change should coexist with the present structure for some time. Thus
allowing migration over time. Just like the other changes that have
occurred in the past.
There have been no objectors so far ... these will come.
"The traditions of the dead generations weigh like a nightmare on the
brains of the living" Karl Marx 1852
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging