[Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - defensive structures

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> On 7 Jul 2021, at 14:43, Bert -Araali- Van Opstal <bert.araali.afritastic at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Georg, there is no need for a new top level value in the historic key or a new defensive_structure key,


+1


> I even doubt of there is any "gap".


then you’re probably not interested in the topic and in describing the details in a structured way


> the proposal just creates more ambiguity with existing tagging schemes.
> All the examples given are specific terms for objects that fit under existing tags.
> We don't use new tags for specific walls in or constructions in non historic buildings either like sheer wall, dividing wall etc... . If there is really a need to describe or use specific terms one can use description=* or even in some cases one of the name keys.



we aim at creating machine readable data, any tag we have in the db could be substituted by description and name tags, because these are freeform tags where you can put any text, but it wouldn’t make the data more informative or easier to use.

I agree with your assessment, we already have (unspecific) tags for all or most of the things that are proposed, but IMHO the conclusion should be additional tags for specific subtypes, rather than freeform tags that require an ai or a person that speaks the language, to make sense of them

Cheers Martin