[Tagging] Pepper: Chili, piper, bell pepper
61sundowner at gmail.com
Sun Aug 20 23:31:48 UTC 2017
On 21-Aug-17 08:07 AM, Tod Fitch wrote:
> I am bemused by this thread.
> I know that when I am sent to the grocers to get peppers I’ve never been asked to get a “chili pepper”. Depending on the desired dish it might be a “Anaheim”, “Chipotle”, “Jalapeño”, “Serrano”, “Habaneros” or other type of the spicy peppers. Those are just a few of the types of peppers we might use in the Southwest United States for a Mexican inspired dish. For Asian inspired dishes there are another whole host of spicy peppers available in the local stores. If a “Bell pepper”, I will usually be requested to get a “yellow Bell pepper” or “red Bell pepper” rather than just a “Bell pepper”. So it seems altering a top level “produce=pepper” into “produce=chili_pepper” and “produce=bell_pepper” would not be a good fit for my part of the world.
> Looking at Wikipedia, there are something like 50,000 varieties of peppers but they can be be broken into two general classes “sweet” and “chili”. So if it is desired to be more specific than just “pepper” it would seem that “chili_pepper” and “sweet_pepper” would be better. But better yet in my mind would be leaving the top level as “pepper” and adding a “variety=*” tag detailing the more specific vulgar (non-latin) name. The world is awash in varieties of common items. I don’t think we want to put all the variations into a top level tag.
The term 'vulgar' can be insulting and is rather technical .. 'common' would be more understood.
> The concept would be to use variety to distinguish produce or products based on the commonly used local names. From taginfo it seems that a “variety” tag is already in undocumented use for wine. Why not embrace and extend that to cover other food stuffs, e.g. “produce=apples”, “variety=jonathan”. I suppose that the British word for corn is maize, so you might have “produce=maize”, “variety=sweet|field|whatever”. Driving by a field I’m pretty sure I can decide if it has corn (maize) in it. But I won’t be able to tell if it is field or sweet corn. Let me tag the top level as “produce=maize” and be done with it. Likewise, I can recognize a few varieties of peppers when they are being grown but far from all. Let me tag the field as “produce=pepper” and if I am confident of the variety I can also add that tag.
I'd not use "variety=" but simply use "apple=jonathan".
> The scheme of using an additional variety tag could even be used to cover the other items called peppers in English, e.g. black pepper corns could be “produce=pepper”, “variety=black_corn”.
>> On Aug 20, 2017, at 2:16 PM, Tom Pfeifer <t.pfeifer at computer.org> wrote:
>> On 20.08.2017 22:48, Kevin Kenny wrote:
>>> The English word 'pepper' also applies to several plants in the genera
>>> Aframomum, Capsicum, Pimenta, Schinus, and Zanthophylum (plus others
>>> that are used in traditional herbal medicine but not for the kitchen). > I think that the original poster wanted to disambiguate among these,
>> Yes of course, that's why he proposed produce=bell_pepper;chili_pepper.
>>> which would make the Linnæan names the best option - there isn't any easy way to
>>> clarify it using only vulgar names.
>> Well there is an easy way: Clearly describing in the wiki that produce=pepper means the fruits of 'piper nigrum'. Introducing an inconsistent language scheme will confuse all occasional mappers. Latin names should remain reserved for genus=* and species=*, and you can add species:en=* for all languages as well.
Using that approach there then need to be a 'clear description that apples means jonathans", and all the others will have to have another tag!
I don't think so, it would be more complex that using a sub tag to describe the specific variety.
More information about the Tagging