[OSM-talk] namespacing of tags

[Robert (Jamie) Munro]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alex L. Mauer wrote:
> Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
>> Robin Paulson wrote:
>>> there a few proposals currently on the wiki that have comments
>>> regarding namespacing of tags. i understand the general concept of
>>> what it is, but why do we need it? it appears to me to be an
>>> unnecessary complication for a tag
> 
> IMO they should also be put in a namespace when the key itself is vague,
> e.g. "type", "class", "surface", "status"..
> 
> type of what?  class of what?  status of what? how does this surface
> value apply?  Is it saying that the tagged thing is on the surface, or
> is it describing the surface of the tagged thing?

You mean like:

highway=foo
highway:type=bar
highway:surface=gravel

If so, good point, but it's only needed if one way or node represents 2
physical things, which IMHO it shouldn't (create a duplicate if necessary).

I suppose something like (I know this isn't approved tagging - I'm just
trying to construct an example where namespaces are clear):

building=church
building:height=50m
amenity=place_of_worship
place_of_worship:denomination=christian

But that doesn't quite work because the place_of_worship namespace is
the value of the amenity tag, not the name of it as above, so it's
inconsistent. Do people think we should consider moving to tagging like
this?

Robert (Jamie) Munro
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHa8eXz+aYVHdncI0RAmt4AKCqxTCwtN95j6GrE8V3kaykR8AE3ACfROu6
C/uks2O4c0qe+jketcNRYAM=
=Pj6V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----