[OSM-talk] amenity=doctor or amenity=doctors ? [tagging]

Dave Stubbs osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Tue Feb 24 09:35:27 GMT 2009

2009/2/23 Guenther Meyer <d.s.e at sordidmusic.com>:
> Am Montag 23 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs:
>> 2009/2/22 Guenther Meyer <d.s.e at sordidmusic.com>:
>> > Am Sonntag 22 Februar 2009 schrieb Dave Stubbs:
>> >> You could just /not/ run a bot on it. Seriously, these tag correcting
>> >> bots can be really annoying. As long as it's documented both ways it
>> >> can be trivially implemented both ways.
>> >
>> > but why should we use two different tags for the same thing?
>> > it would be better to consolidate this...
>> I don't give a monkey's about the tag, I just don't want to see a
>> proliferation of bots of this kind. There's already of couple of
>> unilateral bots running, arbitrarily determining which tags you're
>> allowed to use and it's irritating. Too many more and we'll just be
>> facing a pile of grey goo.
>> So my question is this: given that there /are/ two tags in use, why go
>> to all the effort to change it? Document both and be done with it.
> because...
> 1. ... every application trying to use the data has to deal with several
> taggings for the same thing. that's an unnecessary waste of resources.
> a script running on the database can minimize this waste, and furthermore, can
> fix typos in tags, which are also found all over the database.

1) Typos are a different beast entirely. If you've applied proper
context then some sort of fix bot might work. And some kind of
validation tool would be even better.

2) OMG two tags!!1! Trust me when I say this is a trivial thing to
include when you consider some of the other random tagging variations
that people keep voting in.

> 2. ... it is easier for new mappers to have one documented tag for one
> feature, instead of having to choose...

Fine, no problem. I said document both, not recommend both.

More information about the talk mailing list