[Tagging] Golf tag combinations
61sundowner at gmail.com
Thu Aug 2 12:21:46 UTC 2018
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
> 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.
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging