[OSM-talk] Amenity key
Dave F.
davefox at madasafish.com
Tue Oct 26 00:00:55 BST 2010
On 25/10/2010 12:04, Peter Wendorff wrote:
> I'm not sure wether that's a better approach you describe here.
> Of course it's a building - but also it's a museum.
So building=museum works.
> There are lot's of museums without being a building.
Please see the point at the end which you +1.
> Yes - you can use museum as a subtag everywhere, but to USE it you
> then have to deal with a search for a value rather than to search for
> a tag. IMHO that's a bad idea.
No. With tourism=yes you'd still be searching a key tag. If it isn't
relevant to tourism, you wouldn't add it. (Although see Anthony's
response to this)
>
>
> Let's take the following entities:
> A museum showing old buildings arranged to villages from the far past
> (there are a lot of in Germany, but also in other countries). As
> that's not a building (it includes buildings, but not the ensemble of
> buildings form the museum, the whole area does), building:use=museum
> is wrong.
> area:use=museum - could be, so your idea was to use:
> area:use=museum
> tourism=yes
Correct.
>
> If I want to have all tourism parts, I now could search for
> tourism=yes and parse all other tags for values perhaps useful to
> describe, why that entity could be relevant for tourists.
> Currently it's tagged as tourism=museum, and I'm fine with that, it
> allows me to fetch the kind of interest it has for tourism directly by
> that tag.
>
> Of course tourists are not the only group interested in museums.
This is the main point I've been making.
> There is science as well as "normal" people living around.
> But even these groups would search for museums partly as tourism POIs
> often.
> If there are other "indended uses", we can use additional tags, too:
> Tag a museum as entity of tourism, science, recreational place,
> leisure, garden, shop, artwork, historic place, ruins etc. - all of
> these could be correct for some museums around the world. We have
> these tags, so we can use them without using some tags as "primary".
Yes - I think. "primary" tags should describe the physicality of an
entity. All the others you describe above could be sub (secondary) tags.
>
> What tag is a "primary" one depends heavily on the context I want to
> build a map for.
>>
>> Museums (& art galleries) are used by many people other than tourists.
>>
>> To indicate that it might be of interest to tourists a sub key such
>> as tourism=yes could be used.
> But what is it for tourists? A museum for tourists could be a science
> institute for scientists, a playground for children and a shop for the
> chinese subgroup of tourists.
> We could it tag as shop, playground and museum - if we skip the hunt
> for the one and only set of primary tags.
Not sure i understand you fully, but I wasn't suggesting the tourism=yes
is the only sub tag you could add.
Other sub tags can be added to give a full description of what the
entity is & what it's used for.
>>> How should one know which tags are
>>> considered primary when parsing the OSM database?
>> That's up to the parser. However putting tourism=art_gallery for
>> example gives no indication of what type it is:
>> Is it indoors or outdoors?
>> Is it in a building, marquee, greenhouse? etc.
> +1
Cheers
Dave F.
More information about the talk
mailing list