[Tagging] Strange tags
pla16021 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 1 14:15:18 UTC 2019
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 at 14:45, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Sep 2019 at 02:41, Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Given that the lists at this point are arbitrary,
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 7:39 AM Paul Allen <pla16021 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > That was the conclusion I came to after a more detailed reading of the
> > page. Until a couple of days ago I'd only heard of Munros and thought
> that was
> > a semi-official designation. I now realize these things are arbitrary
> lists and
> > that you or I could come up with a list of Kevins or Pauls. Even if no
> > lists are ever created, there are too many to sensibly add kevins=yes and
> > pauls=yes to various peaks scattered around the world.
> Later, in the same post:
> > If we were to restrict OSM to only those items of interest to me, it
> would be a very
> > sparse map. I, too, am reluctant to discriminate against hillbaggers
> > catering to cyclists and walkers.
> Uhm, so which is it? In one paragraph, you argue that we mustn't do
> it, and in another you argue that we should.
I didn't say we mustn't do it, I said that the way we're currently doing it
Tagging objects as Pauls, Kevins and every other list that may be created is
silly and unsustainable (the same peak could appear in dozens of lists).
Use a relation, or namespacing, or link to a hillbagging reverse-lookup
(if one exists).
I don't think there's a good reason to object to adding these lists to OSM,
but I'm not happy with how it's been done so far. Does that clarify things
It's true that you or I could have come up with kevin=yes or paul=yes.
> But where's the verifiability for a Paui or Kevin list?
I'll mail you a copy of my list. You can verify that it's the same list
say it is. Happy? You ought to be, because it is exactly as verifiable,
in exactly the same way, as all the other lists. The only difference is in
of people who make use of it and how well publicized it is.
The point is that while Pauls may never be a thing (unless I make a list of
all the peaks
I'd never climb, which is all of them) and Kevins may be unlikely to be a
thing, there is
nothing to prevent other lists being created and becoming popular. There's
Whether we have a relation `type=group name=Munros` or whether we have
> a tag: `hillbagging:munro=yes` (and yes, I agree that if we go the
> latter route, a namespace is a good idea) is something to which I'm
> largely indifferent. I'm weakly inclined to the latter (despite what I
> said in an earlier post) only because of the technological problems of
> maintaining a relation that spans a broad geographic area.
Ah, I'd forgotten about the problem with editors. Unless I've missed
it's incredibly difficult to add geographically-dispersed members of a
using iD. So namespacing gets my vote.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging