[OSM-talk] Prolification of the amenity tag

[Chris Fleming]

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> SteveC wrote:
>   
>> * @ 29/11/06 09:30:36 AM richard at systemeD.net wrote:
>>     
>>> Quoting bvh <bvh-osm at irule.be>:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> My take on it is that we should try to tag everything that is needed
>>>> to find your way (the purpose of a map, no?) So it's perfectly
>>>> reasonable to tag football stadiums and churches because by virtue
>>>> of being easily recognizable they serve as a point of reference
>>>> out there in the field.
>>>>
>>>> However, amenities="wifi", ="park_ride", ="clinic" etc don't share
>>>> that purpose. There is little value to add them to a map.
>>>>         
>>> Though I generally agree with your point, park & ride is a valuable  
>>> navigation feature for anyone driving into a city. It may  
>>> significantly alter the route you choose and determine the eventual  
>>> destination of your journey. I would ask you to reconsider your vote  
>>> against here.
>>>       
>> I read 'park_ride' as 'chessington world of adventures'[1]. Maybe make it a
>> bit more idiot-proof?
>>     
>
> During the Christmas period, Chessington World of Adventures is closed,
> so it's car park is used to run a park and ride Christmas shopping
> service for Kingston on Thames(*). Maybe this is why it is tagged that
> way (if indeed it is - I haven't checked).
>
> On the proposal, I disagree completely with the examples given, but not
> the principle. I think we need a limited list of valid amenities, and we
> should have something in the back end that enforces this list for this
> tag (and other lists of other tags). If the list is restricted, it can
> be translated, and we can make the site useful internationally.
>
> However, wifi, park_ride, and clinic all seem like valid amenities to me.
>   
I've been thinking about this and following the discussion, and having 
gone from no particular opinion on this to thinking that we should only 
tag physical attributes. Therefore things like car parks, park and 
rides, pubs, petrol stations, churches are physical things, there is no 
mistaking these and even if they close they will still be there for some 
time. Also because they are obvious if they change this will be spotted 
quickly and the data updated.

Somethings like Wifi is much harder, whilst it does have a physical 
location (of the base station) it is something that is in the air 
covering an area. But in addition it is something that can vary day to 
day on the whim of a business, be turned on or off with little or no 
notice. It makes sense to me at least that these kind of things should 
be stored elsewhere. In the same way that we would indicate the location 
of a pub on the map, but we wouldn't add it's email address or phone 
number, or if it serves food, or it's opening hours, then why would we 
indicate if it has wireless or not?

Cheers
Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20061129/3b722814/attachment.html>