[Tagging] Stolpersteine tagging scheme problem
pla16021 at gmail.com
Sat Aug 25 17:35:35 UTC 2018
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist at gmail.com
> there is no definition for the plaque tag and I am not able to deduct a
> system by looking at the values:
> Most used value is “metal” which would fit for a stolperstein as it is
> quite unspecific. (no plaque=stolperstein yet).
I assumed that plaque=stolperstein had been used going by a previous
response in this thread. Plaque=metal
and plaque=stolperstein would be a rather bizarre mix. Things are made of
metal, not of stolpersteins. A
stolperstein is a very specific type of memorial, metal is not. I'm not
even sure that a stolperstein MUST be
made of metal (as opposed to an inscription on, say, granite or slate)
rather than it just happens to be the
case that many of them are.
Yeah, all the metals: iron, gold, zinc, mercury, silver, stolperstein.
> Would mean we would have to add 4 tags for a stolperstein, as opposed to
> the current alternatives each with 2 tags:
These two are in common use. And the approved method according to
Wrong. The material is less relevant than what type of plaque it is.
Plaque=stolperstein. Optional. Might be better
Still wrong. Don't assume taggers trying to denote the material of the
plaque did it in a sensible way. Or for
a sensible reason. If you really want that level of detail, then
material=metal. Except authors of editors tend to
discourage re-using generic tags because it means extra code to decide
which values to present for which type
of object, so maybe plaque:material=metal.
As you know, there's a lot of ad-hoc tagging. People make things up as
they go along to cover unusual things.
It's only with hindsight we realize that perhaps things could have been
tagged in a more coherent way.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging