[talk-au] Sports Clubs

[Roy Wallace]

On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Now, I don't mind if you
> >> want to tag the thing "A, B, C, member_club".
> >
> > Yes, I would prefer to do that.
>
> Ok, it sounds like we have found some agreement.
>
> "Where A, B and C are simple tags, and Z is a complex tag whose
> meaning can be construed from the presence of A, B and C:
> Preferred tagging: A, B, C, Z
> Acceptable, but dispreferred shorthand: Z"

Basically...or, in my words, "where Z is a kind of object that may be
classified by a set of characteristics (A, B, C, ...), the
characteristics A, B, C, etc should be tagged. Then, if desired and
justifiable, add an additional redundant tag."

> > 1) let say a user wants to find (or render) features that are, say, "A
> > and B". This isn't easy to do if A and B aren't explicitly tagged, but
> > only "A, B and C", or "A, not B and generally C", "C but with a gravel
> > surface", "B except on Tuesdays unless tagged with X", "A and
> > well-engineered for bicycles", etc.
>
> Yes, but I think you ignore the tradeoff. It's like saying "I like
> taking planes rather than trains, because they get me places quicker".
> Well, yes, but they cost more. You want 10 different tags assigned for
> one object because it's "more powerful". Well, yes, but it costs more.
> More time and effort. That's less time and effort that could be spent
> on other things. So it's a tradeoff.

Editor presets. Etcetera. I don't see a high cost involved in using
more explicit tags, especially if it saves us spending "effort"
sifting through the wiki trying to work out, say, what a "cycleway"
really is :P.

> > 2) the need for complex tag definitions in the wiki is lessened. I
> > think this can help us avoid future footway/cycleway-type problems.
>
> I'm not sure that's the cause of the problem, but I probably need to
> do more research. I'm still unclear on whether anyone actually uses
> the definition of "path" that is so painstakingly documented.

Cool, let us know what you conclude...