marc.gemis at gmail.com
Mon Jun 1 05:15:34 UTC 2015
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com> wrote:
> In part the problem comes from the lack of organisation of keys.
> Some are by form (e.g. building=) some by function (e.g. shop=) .. others
> are mixed (e.g. amenity=).
> The mixed ones in particular are hard to mentally recall, organise.
Do you think a tagging schema with several different sub tags is easier ?
Just use the presets in case you don't remember.
Where/ how do you want to organise ? I usually use search, so I don't
encounter the classification problem often. And isn't the classification
problem a rather personal problem? E.g. some apps want to group pubs that
serve, restaurants, fast food etc. in one category. I think OsmAnd does.
Every data consumer is of course free to use a different
grouping/classification from the one that is in the raw data.
Also look at the reception_desk "classification" problem. Some want to
classify it as amenity, others as a tourism feature. That just depends on
your needs. There isn't always a classification that works for everyone.
> Reorganising is difficult .. historical inertia, personal bias and
> reluctance to learn a new system lend bias against it.
Reorganisation should bring big benefits, placing e.g. fountain under
tourism does not bring huge benefits IMHO.
> The other problem is some mappers are looking at things to do locally as
> they think they have added all the available OSM features and now want new
> Reception_desk and power_sockets spring to mind ;-)
I'll agree that introducing the reception_desk key was/is problematic
because of the choice of the top level tag.
On the other hand I do not see why we couldn't tag some of them as amenity
and others as tourism and have both documented. It's pretty easy for data
consumers to support both.
Take a look at e.g. historic places. They support all kind of combination
for the same things (building=farm, historic=yes or just historic=farm).
They process the data before putting it on the map, so those things appear
the same for the users of that map.
As I understood the power_sockets problem is that some want to generalize
the "power_socket" concept. Do we always have to try to find the most
general concept and add X number of subtags to say what we really want to
say ? Or can we sometimes just live with the specialty object (charging
place for cars).
I think the use cases are important, when I'm looking for something to
charge my car, I won't be looking for a socket where I can charge a
computer, and vice versa. Two totally different use cases. In those
situations I would accept a specialty tag for each of them. I know the
world is not black and white and in many cases it will be harder to decide
on a general tag with subtags or a specialty tag.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging