[Tagging] Shop vs amenity
61sundowner at gmail.com
Tue Aug 25 02:13:38 UTC 2015
On 24/08/2015 11:33 PM, Daniel Koć wrote:
> W dniu 24.08.2015 14:11, Warin napisał(a):
>> 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
> This what I've experienced trying micromapping too. I also try see the
> need to mark larger stuff to put the smaller objects into the context.
>> I'd rather say ... leave "amenity" for things that are not shops,
>> buildings nor landuse.
> What if amenity takes the whole building? Landuse=school for area +
> building=school is enough or we still should add amenity=school for
> the building?
Yes. In principle.
landuse .. for the use of the land
building .. for the style of the building
and .. amenity .. for what the feature provides.
However the subject is amenity vs shop
So for your example I would rather use
landuse=commercial .. for the use of the land
building=retail .. for the style of the building
shop=pharmacy (would be amenity=pharmacy but I would like to see that
changed to shop) .. for what the feature provides.
>> There have been changes in the past ...
>> transport 'routes' have changed .. as have power distribution things
> I feel the context is rapidly changing and we can no more rely on what
> was in the past.
> Once OSM was a small London-based project, now it's gaining popularity
> worldwide, is quite strong in Europe and some big players are involved
> ). This makes any changes much harder now and I'm sure it will be even
> more like that in the future.
> It's harder to make any consensus just because there is much more
> people to contact with. For example see the suggested highway color
> shift - it was not made in the closet, Mateusz was writing about it in
> his diary, on the mailing lists and discussed a lot on the GitHub, yet
> some people are surprised and angry because they felt like not being
> warned. We also had big discussion about voting on features which had
> no real effects or conclusions. And this is just internal communication!
Everyone does not participate in all the OSM news sources. Thus people
are surprised when presented with stuff they had no idea of.
> There are also some examples of well thought and even accepted tagging
> schemes which are not in a wider use, like:
> - highway:area (4 years before it really took off now!)
I don't use it. And so on . Mappers won't use stuff that they don't see
a need for.
So what makes the changes from amenity to shop attractive?
Mappers -A more logical grouping that is easier to remember.
Editors -A more logical grouping. SO not much here.
Renders -A more logical grouping that means rendering is easier.? Same
colours for all shops?
>> There have been no objectors so far ... these will come.
> I'm eager to hear them too!
> I want the system to be coherent, but there are many ways it can be
> done and objections to one of them may be perfectly legit. I just hope
> at the end of the day we can choose "the least imperfect" solution,
> because as I've just wrote, everything has some downsides - even
> "smooth" gradual changes (being bound to old cruft for a long time and
> waiting for the critical mass forever).
Yes everthing is a compromise.
Slow changes are much better than sudden ones. Give people time to adapt.
More information about the Tagging