On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Stefan de Konink <[email protected]> wrote: >> Eddy Petrișor wrote: >>> Stefan de Konink a scris: >>>> Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>>>> Of course this would be a lot of work and discussion in the community, >>>>> but I think it's still not too late to do it, and it would help a lot >>>>> to bring more structure and logics in the tagging-scheme. > > more structure in the tagging scheme might stifle innovation and the > ability of non-technical people to extend the taggable features. i > think its better to describe the tags which are actually in use, > rather than proscribe the tags which are allowed. > >>>> Still will probably still not render the right icons (aligned) at the >>>> same place. Maybe the hole discussion amenity discussion could be solved >>>> by going boolean; amenity:hotel = true etc. >>> >>> This sounds like a good idea until you realise people could tag >>> amenity:hotel = no >> >> highway = no is possible too ;) > > and highway=hotel, but this is a property of any non-fixed ontology. :-) > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 3:37 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer > <[email protected]> wrote: >> gastronomy for all kind of beergardens, restaurants, cafes, bars, >> fast_food and the like > > how do i tag my cafe-restaurant or beergarden with a burger bar? it > has just the same problems. > > maybe what we need is an "amenities" tag specifically for multiple > co-located amenities?
I strongly disagree. That is even harder to parse then the ";". Stefan: I really do like the "amenity:bar"="yes" -aproach. The current namespace of "amenity" is preserved, an automatic adding of the new name to every place with the old one is possible (to have a transition-period) and it does solve the problem. Matt: > i think its better to describe the tags which are actually in use, > rather than proscribe the tags which are allowed. There is a problem with what people are tagging and there needs to be a change to this tag to solve it. This calls for a proposal on the "Key:amenity" -page with a voting announced on talk. As the issue affects so many there will be a few people needed to play moderator on the Talk-page. Else this may end like the "license"-discussion on the talk-list. (Hearing the same thing repeatet over and over again without getting anywhere until the threads died.) Marcus _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
