[Tagging] objectivity

Colin Smale colin.smale at xs4all.nl
Sun Oct 29 22:02:26 UTC 2017

The best way to keep it objective would be to tag what it IS and not
what it is CALLED. An outdoor shop is what some people call a shop (not
so controversial) which sells camping gear (probably not too
controversial) and clothing, safety equipment, ... 

If we had a taxonomy of classes of things, mapped to a managed
vocabulary, we can say what the shop sells, at whatever level is
appropriate. Maybe at a high level, like "clothing", and maybe at a much
lower level like "rock climbing shoes"... whatever you want. Of course
each shop will sell multiple types of thing.

On 2017-10-29 22:37, Thilo Haug wrote:

> Regarding the "objectivity in the tag definition " there's still a lot of work to do in the wiki.
> What defines a sport shop versus an outdoor shop, for example ? IMHO only a number of values may define something 'objective'.
> Recently, there's been a discussion about landing strips for airplanes. I'm not in favour to nail it down to the best definition of the main tag, but to describe it using the keys.
> Am Sonntag, 29. Oktober 2017 22:18:56 CET schrieb Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com>: That's probably to be discussed over at tagging mailing list. Sorry, forget this last sentence.
> Given that there's like wheelchair=yes and kids_area=yes [1 [1]] one could
> introduce s'thing like animal friendly properties to amenities (bar,
> restaurant, hotel, ...).
> But IMHO it should be declared as such at the location and/or the webpage.
> No idea yet about the key/values except that it should include also
> other animaly besides dogs :-).
> :Stefan
> [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kids_area
> 2017-10-29 22:08 GMT+01:00 Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com>: Hi,
> There are similar keys like "wheelchair" and allowed vehicles in
> streets (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:access ).
> If there's enough objectivity in the tag definition I'd support that.
> That's probably to be discussed over at tagging mailing list.
> :Stefan
> 2017-10-29 21:56 GMT+01:00 Philip Barnes <phil at trigpoint.me.uk>: On Sun, 2017-10-29 at 21:29 +0100, Tom Pfeifer wrote: On 29.10.2017 16:44, Andrew Hain wrote: How should an establishment that bills itself as "the dog friendly
> cafe" be tagged? 
> dog=* is used 8615 times, of which 1875 are dog=yes.
> 5498 uses are on highways, 854 on amenities and 1114 together with
> opening_hours
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/keys/dog#values
> Though without its own page, this would be my first recommendation.
> See also https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Animals
 Its a bit more than simply allowed, although I do think dog friendly is
a bit subjective in the same way motorcycle friendly was.

Maybe you can tag the features that make it dog friendly, such a jar of
biscuits, water bowls provided for example.

Cafes are not somewhere you would normally classify as dog friendly,
non-assistance dogs are not allowed where food is being served, but dog
friendly pubs are fairly common.

Phil (trigpoint)

Tagging mailing list
Tagging at openstreetmap.org

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:kids_area
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20171029/18f63c37/attachment.html>

More information about the Tagging mailing list