[talk-au] answers to the difficult questions

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Wed Feb 17 07:39:18 GMT 2010


On 17 February 2010 17:19, Andrew Laughton <laughton.andrew at gmail.com> wrote:
> The point being if someone wanted to search for the nearest effluent
> dump, it would be much easier to search for a single tag, not multiple
> tags.

Which relies on the assumption of no pre-processing. You can
potentially make the same argument for a lot of tags, like is_in, that
doesn't make it the best reason for doing something.

Using the is_in example things moved onto admin boundary relations to
describe this information, instead of tagging every single node, way
and relation inside an admin boundary with the exact same information
over and over again.

Thanks to pre-processing we don't need to do this to know what admin
boundaries an object is inside of.

> Any effluent dump may also have a waste oil dump / normal rubbish dump
> nearby as well, making the tags a bit messy and hard to search for.
> "amenity=waste_disposal" starts to become ambiguous if there is no
> "waste" tag to go with it.

I have seen a lot of effulent dump points for caravans that are on
their own, the other types of waste are usually handled by a recycling
centre, and tagging what types of waste those centres will handle is
probably useful as well:

http://www.moretonbay.qld.gov.au/living.aspx?id=846

> In my opinion it would be a bit tidier without the waste tag, and have
> extra "amenity" tag options.

Yes and look at how many amenity tags there are, and growing, I think
a little grouping wouldn't hurt things.




More information about the Talk-au mailing list