[Tagging] Golf tag combinations

[Warin]

Sorry.. don't know what an 'allotment plot' is? I don't see that 
mentioned in the OSMwikis for golf.

I follow the rest of the 'ref' argument. Will have to look at it.

On 02/08/18 22:09, Paul Allen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Chris Hill <osm at raggedred.net 
> <mailto:osm at raggedred.net>> wrote:
>
>     I think people use the ref tag because that makes sense.
>
> In some situations, where name=* is already used for one thing but a 
> reference number is also needed, it makes
> sense.  In other situations t doesn't make sense (to me) to use ref, 
> which isn't rendered, rather than name.
>
>     I'm not a golfer but on allotments the whole site usually has a
>     name and the individual plots have a number (ref=*).
>
> Yes, that's how it was defined.  Which makes no sense. Because what 
> use is it not displaying allotment numbers?
>
> As it happens, plots aren't rendered at all in OSM Carto, but I 
> believe it's on the to-do list.  When (if) that happens then
> the plot boundaries will be rendered but the plot number will not (if 
> you do what the wiki says and identify them with
> ref).
>
> The guy who wrote the proposal for allotment plots gave an example in 
> his proposal.  Of the entire allotment NONE
> of them had refs, but one of them had a name.  So it didn't make 
> sense, even to him.
>
>     The OSM Standard map can't show everything. We used to have a map
>     like that as a sort of 'debug' map for mappers; it was useful but
>     horrible to look at as everything was jammed in and not one to
>     share more widely.
>
> Please don't use that argument for allotments and golf courses, 
> because it doesn't apply to them.  Sure, in some
> situations not everything fits.  I've mapped shops along a high street 
> and not all of their names display because there
> is no room (vector mapping may allow higher zooms one day, and then 
> they will display).  But that's not the case with
> allotments or golf courses.  There's plenty of room for plot 
> numbers/hole numbers to be displayed without looking
> cluttered because they are widely-spaced and there are no other 
> details nearby.
>
> An argument I might accept is that the steps transforming data to 
> rendering are horribly complex and highly
> inefficient and we don't have the compute power to handle allotments 
> and golf courses on top of everything else.  But
> please don't trot out the "clutter" argument where it doesn't apply.
>
>     Abusing the name tag is a common beginner's mistake, let's not
>     encourage even more use of the name tag - rather make or find a
>     render that shows what you want for a particular purpose.
>
> Please explain WHY it's an abuse to use the name tag for golf holes or 
> allotment plots.  Name is to be used for names
> and not descriptions, but "hole 7" and "plot 15" can be viewed as both 
> names and descriptions.  As in "I saw him 5 minutes
> ago teeing off at hole 7."  In fact, you'd never say "I saw him 5 
> minutes ago teeing off at a hole that looks sort of sevenish."
> The number of a hole or plot is a name as much as a description, if 
> not more so.
>
> What might be more sensible is for the carto to render a ref if there 
> is no name=* in the same way that house names
> get rendered if there is no addr:number (which applies to about half 
> the houses where I live).  But I'd still like to know
> why golf greens and allotment plots specified ref instead of name.
>
> -- 
> Paul
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20180802/2c11e65a/attachment-0001.html>