[OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to "MapFeatures" based on tag usage

[elvin ibbotson]

> From: "Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio" <jldominguez at prodevelop.es>
> Date: 31 October 2008 16:31:03 GMT
> To: "elvin ibbotson" <elvin.ibbotson at poco.org.uk>
> Cc: Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to  
> "MapFeatures"	based on tag usage

> From: "Juan Lucas Dominguez Rubio" <jldominguez at prodevelop.es>
> Date: 31 October 2008 11:44:49 GMT
> To: "Richard Fairhurst" <richard at systemeD.net>, "OSM-Talk"  
> <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to  
> "MapFeatures"	based on tag usage
>
> Very interesting. Thank you, Richard. "Doctor's" sounds a bit  
> common to me. "Surgery" is far better...
>
> Cheers,
> Lucas
>>> From: Mark Williams <mark.666 at blueyonder.co.uk>
>>> Date: 31 October 2008 07:21:30 GMT
>>> To: Chris Browet <cbro at semperpax.com>
>>> Cc: OSM-Talk <talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] I've added some amenity values to "Map  
>>> Features"	based on tag usage
>>>
>>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>>> Chris Browet wrote:
>>>>
>>>>     It's fairly standard usage, you see a doctor at the doctors,  
>>>> a butcher
>>>>     runs the butchers. There should really be an apostrophe in  
>>>> there I
>>>>     think, ie: the butcher's shop, the doctor's surgery. But  
>>>> that's not
>>>>     really how people think of it. Just stick both on and point out
>>>>     everyone else's bad grammar :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please bear with non-native english speaker. I agree we all use  
>>>> english
>>>> for easyness but those subtleties seem far-fetched.
>>>> Let's keep it simple and avoid the
>>>> "non-grammatically-correct-possessive-case".
>>>>
>>>> I think the tag value should represent a concept, not be  
>>>> grammatically
>>>> correct.
>>>> We might as well use "A124" or whatever. If everybody agrees it  
>>>> means a
>>>> doctor amenity in whatever language, the goal is reached.
>>>> Obviously, it's far less mnemonic, though... :-)
>>>>
>>>> - Chris -
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <grammar-fascist>
>>> The apostrophe is not correct anyway. It denotes a missed letter, in
>>> this word-position it would be 'doctor is', as opposed to the
>>> non-apostrophe version meaning 'belong to the the doctor' or  
>>> plural doctors.
>>> Doctors' is just silly but would be technically correct(ish) for
>>> multiple doctors (plural)
>>> </grammar-fascist>
>>> I hope we all enjoyed that.
>>> Given that the tags are in use, I'm going to pull rank & declare a
>>> special interest ;) - use amenity=doctors.
>>> DrMark
>>
>>
>> To be even more pedantic...
>>
>> I was taught that apostrophes should be used in two cases: to  
>> indicate a missing letter and to indicate possession,
>> so the premises of a doctor would be  the "doctor's surgery",  
>> while a group practice would be the "doctors' clinic". If the  
>> doctor was at work you could say "the doctor's at the doctor's".  
>> Of course, the English language wouldn't be half so interesting if  
>> he rules were simple, so there is an exception with "it". Where  
>> "it's" means "it is" but something belonging to it would be "its".
>>
>> Having said that, I tend to go along with the school of thought  
>> that we would be as well of without any apostrophes so  
>> amenity=doctors seems fine.
>>
>> elvin ibbotson
>>
>
>
>
> "school of thought" !!!
> wow !!!
> why don't we just call it illiteracy?

So! It seems that a man who goes to the doctors is both common and  
illiterate.
At least he isn't pompous :-)

elvin ibbotson
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20081031/26c4518b/attachment.html>