[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Top up
selfishseahorse at gmail.com
Wed Dec 26 15:22:26 UTC 2018
On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 at 15:10, Stefan Keller <sfkeller at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tag-proposals in the form
> <tag_attr_name>:<type_value->[:<subtype_value>]=yes/no should be
> avoided. It's shifting values to attribute names!
> This detracts processing - given we/OSM already have a non-relational
> key-value schema. Specifically it makes processing with presets and
> any key-value analysis very hard.
> And by saying hard I don't mean it's because some programmers may be
> lazy. It's because having a value as part of an attribute-name is
> really a wrong data structure.
> There are so many tagging alternatives - like the usual tag scheme.
Sorry for asking, but what do you understand by 'usual tag scheme'?
The proposed scheme seems to be quite common, e.g. see
recycling:<material>=yes/no. Besides i thought that semicolons should
be avoided, because, among other things, you can't specify that a
feature or service isn't available (e.g. that you can't top up public
transport cards at a specific place).
How would your top_up tagging scheme look like? top_up=<types> +
More information about the Tagging