[Tagging] Changes + additions: shop= photo, hobby, model
61sundowner at gmail.com
Fri Jun 5 09:25:57 UTC 2015
On 5/06/2015 6:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> 2015-06-05 5:10 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundowner at gmail.com
> <mailto:61sundowner at gmail.com>>:
> Shop=photo changed to remove frames and framing from it.
> Reason.. there is a documented shop=frame so if the shop=photo
> does frames then it should be tagged shop=photo; frame
> I have included that information on the wiki page
> I have reverted this edit. Frames are part of the definition of this
> shop type at least since 2011, you cannot change definitions of tags
> without discussing and retagging first, or you will create
> inconsistencies (the map not matching the definition). Multivalues are
> generally disputed and seen as problematic, read here for more
Thanks... I'll look in to that.
> shop=hobby No documentation present so added
> * text to suggest a more detailed tag be used.
> * link to the wiki shop= hobby area.
> I think the 'status' here should be 'depreciated' ?
> shop=model No documentation so added text + photo to its wiki page
> added link on the shop= wiki page.
> both are tags with very few usage. Still, new definitions should not
> be introduced without consulting with the people using the tags.
> Before a tag definition page is set up, there should be a proposal
> page and sufficient time to consult on the definition (RFC etc.).
> Please remove these pages (e.g. relink to the proposal pages that
> should be set up instead).
There was no documentation - just a page that said .. in use - please
So I have...
I would have used the 'hobby' value ... but it does not fit well with
the main shop page that has a grouping of 'Arts, hobbies' hence the
cautionary documentation I have added there.
IIRC model is a new page .. limited use and I'd like to use that
(instead of the hobby value above). So I'm documenting what I'm doing
... as an alternative of going through the approval process at this stage.
Consider these to be forthcoming drafts ... better than what was there.
If the past mappers find and disagree .. good. I'll try to contact them
latter .. and some of the other 'model' values too (model_train
model_railway etc) though there are fewer of them again. This way they
will have something to look at and consider.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging