My standard plea: we are building a taxonomy of the world, and our
tagging scheme should be jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, when
that makes sense.
For marking the area of land used by the resort area (including
buffers), I think a landuse= value is appropriate. It isn't
residential,
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/1/31 Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com:
In my opinion this is a rather obvious approach therefore I'm not
surprised that someone already came up with it earlier. But I am
definitively surprised that we
On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 7:38 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/1/13 Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org:
Perhaps instead of bridge_type, it should be bridge:structure, or some other
indication that it's referring to the general engineering and architecture
of the bridge
2013/2/2 Christopher Hoess caho...@gmail.com:
what should be the values for
the bridge tag?
I haven't dealt in this proposal with the differences between
abandoned, damaged, removed, etc. as I don't have a
well-thought-out classification of those yet, and the proposal is
sufficiently
2013/2/2 Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com:
I think amenity=hotel belongs on the building, and something like
landuse=tourism on the entire property.
don't like landuse=tourism, as this is confusing (would be tagged to
churches, disneyland, archaeologic sites, hotels, ...)
amenity=hotel should be
Response to selected comments:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer
dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote:
+1
these are all bridge values with more than 100 occurrences, my
comments inline after the percentages:
yes
1 656 829 97.79% the very most
✔
null
Not surprising, given
buffers), I think a landuse= value is appropriate. It isn't
residential, industrial, or retail. Probably the same landuse tag is
appropriate for a big resort as for a regular hotel.
In the beginning it took a while to realize, that the osm tagging
system as-it-was-at-the-start omits some tags
