[OSM-talk] Prolification of the amenity tag

80n 80n80n at gmail.com
Thu Nov 30 09:27:20 GMT 2006


On 11/30/06, Ben Robbins <ben_robbins_ at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >None of the online maps that I know give a route description in terms of
> >"go past the bakers" Not even those that have that information...  And
> >for a very good reason : a baker might not always be as easily
> >recognizable (for example because it is dark).
>
> 1) I was refering to people giving you directions, maybe if you pulled
> over
> to ask them, or maybe just on an invitation.
> 2) Indeed it might not 'always' be as easily recognizable, but Frequently
> it
> would be. Dark could stop you seeing/recogining anything, so that doesnt
> really applie only to basic building tags.
> 3) Are we just intending to copy all online map companys? or can we think
> independently...


Well said Ben.

>Someone needs to put that location in osm in the first place. Why not place
> >it in yellowiki instead?
>
> Because I use osm, and don't particually want to be working in 2 places at
> once.  That just my opion though, some poeple may see that as little
> concern
>
> >No, it would come for example from fon.com which will always be more up
> >to date than what could be in osm.
> >You are aware that the pick up area of a wifi hotspot is not static?
>
> I'm not very knowledgeble on the matter, but there must be some spots that
> can be gaanteed to be in the wifi zone, as I am currently on one, and it
> is
> perminent.  When I walk the other side of the hill I can't get it ever.
> Therfore the line will fall between.   Is Fon.com a wiki?   If not then
> saying we shouldnt tag wifi areas as there shown on there would be the
> same
> as saying we shouldnt make maps cause OS does.   If it is a wiki, then the
> same argument applies to that of the baker/bucher.  On osm it may just
> state
> its a wifi, and then to find more infomation that isnt visual you would
> look
> on the speicific page.
>
> Stating that something is pointless wouild just mean people may not want
> to
> be using it.  Pointless is very different to deconstructive.  Therefore I
> don't think thats any reason for you to vote against it, so that a tag may
> not be made standaised for people that may wish to 'pointlessly' use
> it.  As
> it is you are free not to use a tag, you don't need to stop others
> using/making tags, to enable you not to use it.


Agreed, pointless is not a very good reason for voting against a proposal.
Abstention would be more appropriate.  And you can abstain from using it if
it does get approved.

80n

Ben
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters!
> http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20061130/781b5f6e/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list