[OSM-talk] A post box called Breuningsweiler

[Andy Robinson]

David Earl wrote:
>Sent: 25 May 2007 2:56 PM
>To: 'OSM'
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] A post box called Breuningsweiler
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nick Whitelegg [mailto:Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk]
>> Sent: 25 May 2007 14:07
>> To: David Earl
>> Cc: Andy Robinson; 'OSM'; talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] A post box called Breuningsweiler
>>
>>
>> >This seems perverse to me when there are already tags for farms
>> >(landuse=farm)
>>
>> Landuse is an area tag though, and not really appropriate for the actual
>> farm building. As it happens, in the absence of an official farm tag I've
>> been going (on a longstanding basis now, basically ever since Map
>> Features
>> replaced the class system) with a third option: residence=farm.
>
>
>No it isn't:
>
><quote from Map_features>
>Node/Area | Physical | landuse | farm | Animals, vegetables, flowers, fruit
>growing (Other languages)
></quote>
>
>Almost all the area tags say Node/Area. The most common one used like this
>is amenity=parking which is already rendered as both area (shading) and
>node
>(icon) on both maps.
>

Let's not get carried away here. The original Map Features that I produced
back in March 06, which at the time loosely suggested what feature type a
tag would apply to, was intended to cover (in English) the basic features I
saw on conventional mapping. But it is deeply flawed for lots of reasons;
partly because at the time it was first introduced we didn't even have ways
or areas and partly because it only considered tags based on ideas rather
than experience. It was breaking new ground.

Map Features was never intended to be the only tagging method or indeed an
OSM standard. OSM is all about freeform tagging anyway. Yes, there is huge
demand for a standardised format to permit generic rendering and other uses
but that's only part of the reason OSM is here to stay.

We all know that a better format and structure to the way we tag is needed
and that's what I'll be turning my attention to at SOTM. What I believe we
need is a better structure for creating our tags rather than defining the
meaning of every tag used. If a new tag has a logical place in the structure
it should encourage better tagging without the restriction of having to use
only approved tags.

Of course as part of this process we will undoubtedly create a set of tags
we standardise upon for producing generic map rendering for the masses.

Cheers

Andy