[Tagging] A modest proposal to increase the usefulness of the tagging list

bkil bkil.hu+Aq at gmail.com
Fri Jun 14 18:30:24 UTC 2019


On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 6:05 AM John Willis via Tagging
<tagging at openstreetmap.org> wrote:
> On Jun 4, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com> wrote:
>
> Or you will use.
> Thanks for handling man_made bridge. I use it a lot.
>
> The only comment to this idea of “make tags for you to use” is that if you invent a tagging method for a particular type of object, that you include similar objects that people would like to map to avoid tag fragmentation.
>
> If you propose amenity=foobar, I expect you to consider a subtag like foobar=* or foobar:type=* to be able to define different types of the foobar people encounter.
>
> if you are proposing a new tag foo_bar=* to handle x, y, & z, I expect you to consider l,m,n,o & p as well - even if you don't use them -  because trying to get them “approved” later is very difficult, and people will use incorrect tags on objects just to complete mapping if that is the case.
>
> the Tagging mailing list extends the **tagging system**, It’s not just for solving a single particular mapping issue for an individual.
>
> Tags can be extended later, but it means convincing people to support a sinlge tag value they don't care about individually or don't understand the usefulness of, when it probably would have easily been approved without objection if it was included in the original proposal. the golf=cart_path recently comes to mind.
>
> Javbw
>

Agreed on all points.



More information about the Tagging mailing list