[OSM-talk] [tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC -(man_made=mineshaft)

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu Oct 22 00:25:09 BST 2009


On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Cartinus <cartinus at xs4all.nl> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>> > A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's
>> > a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is
>> > not that uncommon in germany.
>>
>> So propose landmark=cafe.  Much easier than changing the definitions
>> of both amenity and amenity=cafe.
>
> Nobody is changing any definitions. They are just using a combination of two
> existing and widely used tags. Much, much easier than writing a proposal for
> a new tag.

If nobody is changing any definitions, then tagging a former cafe with
amenity=cafe is wrong on two counts.

Amenity "is the primary tag for useful and important facilities for
visitors and residents".  amenity=cafe "is for a generally informal
place with sit-down facilities selling beverages and light meals
and/or snacks".




More information about the talk mailing list