[Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - camp_site=camp_pitch

[Tod Fitch]

> On May 20, 2019, at 4:28 PM, marc marc <marc_marc_irc at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Le 21.05.19 à 00:58, Joseph Eisenberg a écrit :
>> I don’t feel enthusiastic about creating a 4th competing tagging
>> standard to go along with camp_site=pitch, camp_site=camp_pitch
>> and tourism=camp_pitch
> 
> it's an argument that makes sense.
> perhaps in this case, should we start by proposing to depreciate
> camp_site=pitch and camp_site=camp_pitch since these are the 2 most
> problematic in the logic of tag linking
> 
> both depreciated tags would be temporarily converted into
> tourism=camp_pitch but without voting on the choice of the final key,
> dividing the problem in two would allow, i hope, to have almost
> unanimity on the first step

Is there some overall agreed upon “logic of tag linking” that I’ve missed reading about?

Near as I can tell tag formation/structure/logic is all over the place, obviously evolving with time and the opinion(s) of whoever decided they needed to map a particular set of features.

If there is someplace I can read up on this “logic of tag linking”? I’d love to have a link.

Thanks!


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/attachments/20190520/bc1e22ba/attachment.sig>