Re: [Tagging] tagging sport=shotput or sport=shot_put?

[Tom Pfeifer]

Warin wrote on 2016/03/25 23:07:

On 25/03/2016 9:16 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Warin wrote on 2016/03/25 05:11:

I thing I prefer the sport=shot_put as that reflects wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_put


I prefer to tag all those as sport=athletics, as well as the tracks for 
long-jump and running.
You can still sub-tag if needed, but maybe the pitch is used for the throwing 
disciplines
also?


Too late to tag in a non duck way. The sports tags are all ducks.

Athletics covers things like running .. and that is not tagged under athletics. 
Athletics has a very poor use by mappers - they re using duck tagging.


I see sport=athletics used quite well, the 9th most frequent value in sport 
with ca 19000 tags.
running is on the second page with only 5400.


The athletics sports that share pitches are hammer throwing and discus throwing 
and we already have a method of combining them ... 
sports=hammer_throwing;discus_throwing.


sport=hammer_throwing = 0
sport=discus_throwing = 0


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

[Greg Troxel]

Alan McConchie  writes:

> Some commenters have suggested using the existing highway=path tag,
> with supplemental tags such as access=no or informal=yes, or a new
> supplemental tag path=social_trail, or adding an operator
> tag. However, these supplemental tags are too easily ignored by data
> consumers and renderers, which is problematic given the destructive
> and hazardous nature of social trails in many areas. This proposal
> argues that it is better and safer for data consumers and renderers to
> *opt in* in order to show these ways, rather than the existing
> situation where a renderer has to actively *opt out* to remove trails
> with access=no or informal=yes. The default should err on the side of
> safety.

First, this is changing tags of objects that are actually there, because
some want to hide information from others.  That motivation is suspect
in terms of OSM norms.

Second, "safety" is in the eye of the beholder.   If there's a an actual
trail present, even if prohibited, then it's better for navigation to
have it on the map, for not only use during emergencies, but for
orientation when navigating with paper maps.   If an authority wants to
prohibit trail use, that needs to be done by signage at trailheads and
at the prohibited trail - plenty of people do not use OSM.  So I find
the notion that such trails must be suppressed from maps rendered from
OSM to be a stretch.

access=no is not an esoteric tag - it's quite well established and
rendered.  It's even shown by the default render on openstreetmap.org
(the trail is show, but shaded pink) - I just checked a trail that I
marked access=no (but which actually exists, and which organized walks
have used with permission).

  - gdt (often mapping trails, and for context, mapper since 2009, 1235
changesets0


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

[Tagging] Subject: Feature Proposal - RFC - highway=social_path

[Alan McConchie]

Dear tagging list,

I’d like to solicit comments on the following proposal, to create a new tag 
called "highway=social_path"

Wiki page is here: 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Social_path

Definition from the wiki page:

We propose the "social_path" value to mark so-called social trails (also known 
as bootleg trails or desire lines): game trails, detours, or short-cuts that 
have seen sufficient pedestrian use that they appear to be highway=path. Such 
trails often contribute to erosion and may represent hazards to both humans and 
the environment.

Social trails are considered unauthorized by managing agencies and are often 
inventoried for remediation purposes. In extreme circumstances (e.g. 
emergencies) they may be used for travel in the same way in which game trails 
can be followed. However, users of these trails should assess the relative risk 
in the case of emergencies: using a social trail may be extremely hazardous, 
and may be more dangerous than the emergency the user is trying to escape from.

Rationale from the wiki page:

Use of unauthorized trails can have significant environmental impacts in terms 
of erosion and habitat destruction, and it can also lead to dangerous 
situations where casual hikers find themselves in steep or otherwise hazardous 
terrain. We need a way to mark these trails so they can be excluded from 
public-facing wayfinding maps. Simply deleting the trails is unlikely to be 
effective since mappers tracing aerial imagery would have no idea that a past 
trail was removed and would not be able to distinguish it from an intentional 
path.
Giving park agencies a way to manage and communicate the intentionality of 
their trails within OSM would encourage them to use the map and see OSM trail 
mappers as a resource in helping disseminate accurate wayfinding information 
within their parks as well as contributing to remediation efforts.

Some commenters have suggested using the existing highway=path tag, with 
supplemental tags such as access=no or informal=yes, or a new supplemental tag 
path=social_trail, or adding an operator tag. However, these supplemental tags 
are too easily ignored by data consumers and renderers, which is problematic 
given the destructive and hazardous nature of social trails in many areas. This 
proposal argues that it is better and safer for data consumers and renderers to 
*opt in* in order to show these ways, rather than the existing situation where 
a renderer has to actively *opt out* to remove trails with access=no or 
informal=yes. The default should err on the side of safety.

Context: 

We (Stamen Design and GreenInfo Network, on behalf of the non-profit CaliParks 
project) developed this proposal in conjunction with local park managers in 
California. These park managers have unmatched local knowledge about the 
quality and safety of trails in their parks. From their point of view, social 
trails are qualitatively and fundamentally different from typical trails, to 
the extent that social trails should be a distinct feature in OSM. We recognize 
that this view is controversial, but we welcome the discussion and we will 
abide by the vote of the OSM community. We do not see this as a case of 
"tagging for the renderer": rather this is a good-faith effort to improve the 
tagging within OSM to better and more accurately describe the world, in ways 
that improve the experience for the majority of OSM data users and renderers. 

Note: As an experiment, we tagged 17 features in Marin County, California, as 
highway=social_path, but these have subsequently been re-tagged as 
highway=path, access=no. To my knowledge there are now no currently-existing 
examples of highway=social_path in the main database. See the discussion on the 
talk-us list for more information. Thread begins here: 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-us/2016-March/016031.html

We look forward to your comments,

Alan McConchie
Stamen Design





___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging sport=shotput or sport=shot_put?

[Warin]

On 25/03/2016 9:16 PM, Tom Pfeifer wrote:

Warin wrote on 2016/03/25 05:11:

Hi,
Both sport=shotput and sport=shot_put exist in the data base with 
about the same numbers .. about 50 each.


I thing I prefer the sport=shot_put as that reflects wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_put


I prefer to tag all those as sport=athletics, as well as the tracks 
for long-jump and running.


You can still sub-tag if needed, but maybe the pitch is used for the 
throwing disciplines

also?



Too late to tag in a non duck way. The sports tags are all ducks.

Athletics covers things like running .. and that is not tagged under 
athletics. Athletics has a very poor use by mappers - they re using duck 
tagging.


The athletics sports that share pitches are hammer throwing and discus 
throwing and we already have a method of combining them ... 
sports=hammer_throwing;discus_throwing.


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

sent from a phone

> Am 25.03.2016 um 13:29 schrieb Alexander Matheisen 
> :
> 
> And the German version of this article (you can translate it with
> Google Translator) says that a secondary road often corresponds to a
> certrain legal designation, but it does not have to.


although this is a peripheral discussion here, I like to point out that "legal 
designation" has more dimensions to it than the average driver would maybe 
assume: the German signposted classification of Bundesstraße, Landstraße, 
Kreisstraße is about the operator, it is not the actual classification that 
authorities use to plan and manage the road network. They use planning 
guidelines with different classes, which are not directly visible to the user 
of a road. A good starting point for the German situation is maybe here: 
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richtlinien_für_integrierte_Netzgestaltung
(I believe the actual guideline is not available for free), and I guess other 
countries will likely have similar standards that go beyond the system that is 
visible from signs on the road.

cheers,
Martin 
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 16:36 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen
>  wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> > > On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
> > >  wrote:
> > > 
> > > > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is
> > > > subjective,
> > > > but there is no alternative.
> > > 
> > > Poppycock.
> > 
> > Why?
> 
> For the reason I gave in an earlier post: it is often an objective,
> verifiable legal designation.

No, see my recent post: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/taggi
ng/2016-March/028960.html.

> > > > It is not possible to calculate the importance
> > > > of a station just by some values.
> > > 
> > > How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?
> > 
> > I do not use any calculation based on measures?! My proposal (seems
> > that you did not read it) uses a list of characteristic criterias
> > for
> > each category.
> 
> You seem to mean different things by:

> Please define your terms.

Sorry, I am no native English speaker, so sometimes I may have problems
to find the right term for my ideas.

> * values
> * measures

For me these terms are almost equal: Numeric values which are neutral
facts and a measurable (e.g. by counting things). For example the
number of passengers, population, etc.

> * characteristic criterias [sic]

Oh, that is a strange term. What I meant was "characteristic
properties". A list of properties that are typical and representative
for objects of a category. An object must not have all of these
properties; these properties help the mapper to decide which category
is the most appropriate for an object.

Examples: "Stations of category xyz typically are big traffic hubs
served by highspeed trains" or "Typically, these controlled-access
highways have a minimum of two lanes in each direction that are
separated by a barrier." from 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dmotorway.

> > The scheme I propose can be compared to the place=* scheme.
> 
> > This definition also mentions "important", so where is the
> > difference
> > to the importance proposal?
> 
> The former does not try to quantify importance. It uses the term
> descriptively in the page about the key, not as the key.

So if I understand you right, your main point of critique only concerns
the name of the key? What about tagging stations with e.g.
station_range=interregional/regional/local/suburban/...?

> > > > I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
> > > > example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is
> > > > difficult
> > > > to
> > > > measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other
> > > > mappers.
> > > 
> > > Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
> > > checked* by other mappers.
> > 
> > If you think that the number of passengers or trains is easy to map
> > in
> > a larger scale, then please describe how you would map these
> > values.
> 
> Please answer my question.

As I described I would not use information such as number of
passengers, etc. but just a single tag that classifies a station.

> > If you just calculate the importance from a list of measurable
> > values,
> > you may get good results with a complex algorithm that recognizes
> > many
> > aspects. But then it is very difficult for a mapper to understand
> > why
> > station A was ranked more important than station B, and it is also
> > difficult to influence the ranking if it is wrong. That is what I
> > mean
> > with transparency.
> 
> So long as the algorithm is published, it would be entirely
> transparent.

Yes and no.

Of course if is transparent in the way that it is possible to
understand how this ranking algorithm works and what is returned.

But still intransparent is the result itself of this algorithm. Think
of an algorithm that calculates the importance by recognizing
passengers per day, number of platforms and number of trains. This
algorithm will combines these values and return a numeric value. And
this numeric value is not transparent because for itself it does not
contain any information. It is just a relative information. Compared
with the values of other stations it is possible to say that station A
is more important than station B.

But with a tag like importance=* you have a human-readable information
about the importance of a station.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 25 March 2016 at 12:19, Alexander Matheisen
 wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
>> On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
>>  wrote:
>>
>> > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is
>> > subjective,
>> > but there is no alternative.
>>
>> Poppycock.
>
> Why?

For the reason I gave in an earlier post: it is often an objective,
verifiable legal designation.

>> > It is not possible to calculate the importance
>> > of a station just by some values.
>>
>> How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?
>
> I do not use any calculation based on measures?! My proposal (seems
> that you did not read it) uses a list of characteristic criterias for
> each category.

You seem to mean different things by:

* values
* measures
* characteristic criterias [sic]

Please define your terms.


> The scheme I propose can be compared to the place=* scheme.

> This definition also mentions "important", so where is the difference
> to the importance proposal?

The former does not try to quantify importance. It uses the term
descriptively in the page about the key, not as the key.

> And why is importance=* so problematic from
> the view of some mappers, while we are also using a similar scheme for
> places?

We are not; and for the reason given earlier in this thread.

>> > I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
>> > example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult
>> > to
>> > measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other
>> > mappers.
>>
>> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
>> checked* by other mappers.
>
> If you think that the number of passengers or trains is easy to map in
> a larger scale, then please describe how you would map these values.

Please answer my question.

>> > I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
>> > algorithm might be very intransparent.
>>
>> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more
>> transparent*.
>
> As I said, I do not use any calculation based on measures.

See above regarding your terms.

> My proposal
> requires that a mapper classifies a station to one station category. It
> is more transparent because everyone can see that a station is tagged
> with a certain category. So a user easily understands why e.g. a
> station is rendered in a certain zoom level or was recognized as more
> important in the ranking of search results.

Then the tag would be transparent, but not the means used to arrive at it.

> If you just calculate the importance from a list of measurable values,
> you may get good results with a complex algorithm that recognizes many
> aspects. But then it is very difficult for a mapper to understand why
> station A was ranked more important than station B, and it is also
> difficult to influence the ranking if it is wrong. That is what I mean
> with transparency.

So long as the algorithm is published, it would be entirely transparent.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Montag, den 21.03.2016, 23:26 +0100 schrieb Daniel Koć:
> Interesting idea worth testing, IMO. However I suspect in practice
> there 
> will be lot of problems to make it really fly.
> 
> Let's look at the similar simple idea (with scoring based on city
> type 
> and population) used to render city labels in osm-carto in a more
> sane 
> way:
> 
> https://github.com/gravitystorm/openstreetmap-carto/pull/1461
> 
> Almost 5 months of discussing and hand tweaking the algorithm tells
> me 
> just having the hard (numerical) data might be not as easy as you
> depict 
> it. Raw population data is far from having world-range city ranking
> we 
> needed.

+1

> Maybe the key name should not be "importance" - I just took an 
> existing/proposed scheme with some nice defined values and tried to 
> extend its scope outside just the railways. While for example "range"
> may be good for transportation, it wouldn't work with peaks, of
> course.

I am open for other key names. range sounds good and might be a might
be a better word for this key.

On the other hand, the exact name of the key is not that important. It
is just a kind of placeholder and a detailled definition should be
delivered in the wiki or in tagging presets.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:20 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 18 March 2016 at 22:15, Michael Reichert  wrote:
> 
> > I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable
> > concept
> > but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable
> > and
> > suitable for OSM. Just take the timetable or go out and stay one
> > day on
> > the platforms, count and note down all stopping trains.
> 
> That would allow you to verify (in a very loose sense) the number of
> trains; not the importance of the station.

Right, this does not indicate the importance. But why do you propose to
map such values, but at the same time say that these values do not
indicate the importance?

> > In addition,
> > more important stations often have better/more facilities for
> > passengerts like a ticket shop (smaller ones only have vending
> > machines), a toilet, backeries, fast food stores, waiting rooms,
> > etc.
> 
> That would, allow you to verify a list of facilities, not the
> importance of the station.

Same...

> > If OSM would free of any importance-like tags, we would not have
> > the
> > highway=* tag as we have it now. Tagging is highway=primary vs.
> > secondary, secondary vs. tertiary, tertiary vs. unclassified is
> > often a
> > question of importance, not only width, paving and lane count.
> 
> Tagging highways as "primary" or "secondary" is often a matter of
> verifiable legal designation.

No, not really. The definition on 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:highway%3Dsecondary does not say
anything about legal designation.

And the German version of this article (you can translate it with
Google Translator) says that a secondary road often corresponds to a
certrain legal designation, but it does not have to. A mapper can also
tag it as primary or tertiary if that describes the type of street
better.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Alexander Matheisen]

Am Freitag, den 25.03.2016, 11:26 + schrieb Andy Mabbett:
> On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
>  wrote:
> 
> > If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is
> > subjective,
> > but there is no alternative.
> 
> Poppycock.

Why?

> > As the person who created that station importance draft, I will
> > focus
> > on stations, but for other features like mountain peaks the
> > situation
> > should be similar: It is not possible to calculate the importance
> > of a
> > station just by some values.
> 
> How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?

I do not use any calculation based on measures?! My proposal (seems
that you did not read it) uses a list of characteristic criterias for
each category.

The scheme I propose can be compared to the place=* scheme. The tagging
of places is also a kind of importance ranking. According to the wiki
it is not based on population and it can be decided by the user to get
better results:

"By way of example, the charter city of Alameda in California
 (population 76,000) is tagged as a town, due to its proximity to the 
much larger and better known cities of San Francisco (populations 
805,000) and Oakland (population 309,000)." (
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dcity)

Also see this description taken from 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:place%3Dtown:

"Use place=town to identify an important urban centre that is larger
than a place=village, smaller than a place=city, and not a
place=suburb. Towns normally have a good range of shops and facilities
which are used by people from nearby villages."

This definition also mentions "important", so where is the difference
to the importance proposal? And why is importance=* so problematic from
the view of some mappers, while we are also using a similar scheme for
places?

> > I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
> > example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult
> > to
> > measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other
> > mappers.
> 
> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
> checked* by other mappers.

If you think that the number of passengers or trains is easy to map in
a larger scale, then please describe how you would map these values.

For example see the number of passengers. In most cases railroad
companies do not publish these information except for some big station.
That means that a mapper would have to go to the station, stand near
the entrance and count how many people go in and out. For larger
stations you need more than one mapper to count this.

And also if you are able to count the number of passengers, there are
more problems: This value depends on time, so it would be necessary to
do this more than once at different times, different days, etc. to
calculate an average value. Do you think this is praticable?

Another suggestion here was the number of trains. This can be done more
easily, and if timetable information in standard formats are available,
this value can be collected automatically. But the problem is, that
this value does not indicate the importance of a station. A suburb
station may have trains departing every 2 minutes while a central
station may have trains departing every 10 minutes. But that does not
indicate that the suburb station is more important.

> > I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
> > algorithm might be very intransparent.
> 
> Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more
> transparent*.

As I said, I do not use any calculation based on measures. My proposal
requires that a mapper classifies a station to one station category. It
is more transparent because everyone can see that a station is tagged
with a certain category. So a user easily understands why e.g. a
station is rendered in a certain zoom level or was recognized as more
important in the ranking of search results.

If you just calculate the importance from a list of measurable values,
you may get good results with a complex algorithm that recognizes many
aspects. But then it is very difficult for a mapper to understand why
station A was ranked more important than station B, and it is also
difficult to influence the ranking if it is wrong. That is what I mean
with transparency.


Regards
Alex

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 21 March 2016 at 22:26, Daniel Koć  wrote:

> Using Wikidata as a base for peaks scoring is worse than basing it on
> population, because it's less universal and relies on one particular
> website, but I don't reject it at this moment.

Actually, counting the links to other Wikimedia sites from Wikidata
relies on over 300 other websites (290 Wikipedias, a dozen or more
sister projects)

> Still I think "international airport" in the name hints us something and is
> worth using this way or another to indicate importance.

Good luck getting a train to another country from Birmingham
International railway station.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 20 March 2016 at 00:12, Alexander Matheisen
 wrote:

> If you have a look at the highway=* tagging: This scheme is subjective,
> but there is no alternative.

Poppycock.

> As the person who created that station importance draft, I will focus
> on stations, but for other features like mountain peaks the situation
> should be similar: It is not possible to calculate the importance of a
> station just by some values.

How do you calculate it, then? Rolling dice?

> I also see problems in getting some of the proposed values. For
> example, the amount of passengers or trains per time is difficult to
> measure for a mapper and is not easy to be checked by other mappers.

Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more easily
checked* by other mappers.

> I also see the problem that calculating the importance by a complex
> algorithm might be very intransparent.

Please explain what measure you are using, that is *more transparent*.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] importance=* tag (for transportation etc)

[Andy Mabbett]

On 18 March 2016 at 22:15, Michael Reichert  wrote:

> I agree that an importance tag for mountains is not a suitable concept
> but a importance tag for train stations (or airports) is surveyable and
> suitable for OSM. Just take the timetable or go out and stay one day on
> the platforms, count and note down all stopping trains.

That would allow you to verify (in a very loose sense) the number of
trains; not the importance of the station.

> In addition,
> more important stations often have better/more facilities for
> passengerts like a ticket shop (smaller ones only have vending
> machines), a toilet, backeries, fast food stores, waiting rooms, etc.

That would, allow you to verify a list of facilities, not the
importance of the station.

> If OSM would free of any importance-like tags, we would not have the
> highway=* tag as we have it now. Tagging is highway=primary vs.
> secondary, secondary vs. tertiary, tertiary vs. unclassified is often a
> question of importance, not only width, paving and lane count.

Tagging highways as "primary" or "secondary" is often a matter of
verifiable legal designation.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Re: [Tagging] tagging sport=shotput or sport=shot_put?

[Tom Pfeifer]

Warin wrote on 2016/03/25 05:11:

Hi,
Both sport=shotput and sport=shot_put exist in the data base with about the 
same numbers .. about 50 each.

I thing I prefer the sport=shot_put as that reflects wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_put


I prefer to tag all those as sport=athletics, as well as the tracks for 
long-jump and running.

You can still sub-tag if needed, but maybe the pitch is used for the throwing 
disciplines
also?

tom


___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging