On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 8:06 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 20:09:40 +0100, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Marcus Wolschon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> 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 ";". >> >> please explain. > > Because it means you have 2 tags instead of one > and the "amenities"-tag would need a separator like ";" anyway. > > My use-case is the search for all instances of a given amenity.
so when you see the amenities tag, split on ';' or whatever, trim the result and insert a row into the database/file store for each result. it doesn't seem that hard to me. in any case, it seems like the "amenities" key suggestion is rejected by all sides. certainly no-one is using it in the wild. >>> 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. >> >> bots are strongly discouraged - if you want people to start using your >> tagging suggestion please ask them. > > Guess why I suggested a voting, announcement on talk and some > volunteering moderators? the impression i got from "the current namespace ... transition-period" was that you intended to run a bot continuously over the data to keep amenity=xxx and amenity:xxx=yes in sync. sorry if i misinterpreted - as long as it doesn't involve bots, i don't mind :-) >>>> 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. >> >> no, people are tagging as they see fit. the problem is that, in some >> very rare situations, it is difficult to parse. this is not a problem >> that needs an invasive solution. > > That is for the people themself to decide. the people seem to have already decided (see blackadder's email). >> unfortunately, as i'm sure we're all aware, trying to change an >> established convention is like trying to push water uphill ;-) > > Simple thing, ask the water to cooperate by freezing and if it refuses > stop other actions until you have build some buckets. and ask some of the water to turn into gold, so you can go buy a pump. ;-) cheers, matt _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
