Re: [Tagging] parking

Roy Wallace wrote: How should a parking lot be tagged, that is provided for customers, e.g. at a restaurant, or retail business? It may be signed as such (e.g. Customers only), or may not. I would add access=permissive. You can a note=* tag to describe it in more detail if you want. That

Re: [Tagging] Race track

Roy Wallace wrote: How would you map a race track i.e. the road/gravel surface, as an area? I'm not sure about 1) tags to use and 2) how to actually indicate the area, i.e. as it's a circuit, I'm guessing you'd need a multipolygon relation? Take a look at Beverley racecourse. [1] It sits

Re: [Tagging] ref tags and reference routes

Richard Welty wrote: administratively, a reference route is no different from a conventional signed route number. from a practical point of view, you almost never see a reference route on a sign. what we come back to is tagging for the renderer, if we put the reference route designations

Re: [Tagging] How To Tag Coastlines That Are Also Cliffs?

Zeke Farwell wrote: Hi, I'm newly subscribed to the tagging list so I apologize if this has been discussed before. Didn't find it in the archives though. I'm working on an area of coastline made up of cliffs and beaches

Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)

Jonas Minnberg wrote: [snip] landuse=yard (For private backyards etc, usually inaccessible, even if they may look park-like on the satellite). In the UK we would sometimes call a backyard a garden. leisure=garden already exists. Cheers, Chris

Re: [Tagging] Landuse border alignment

Jonas Minnberg wrote: When is it OK to remove an overlapping landuse ? In some places I found 3 overlapping landuses and it's not clear which one has priority... When you have visited the area and found out what the real landuse is? Cheers, Chris

Re: [Tagging] Green areas that are not parks (revisited)

Liz wrote: On Sat, 15 May 2010, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: what if someone decides not to cut his grass? It would IMHO still be a garden. My grass is rarely cut (climatic reasons) and we have left the main grassed area to become /meadow/. It's not a garden now in any English

Re: [Tagging] [OSM-talk] Tagging wide steps (tribune / terrace)

fly wrote: validator gives warnings about the lower/upper way because these ways do not have any tag. Do we need a tag for these ways ? I put source tags on ways in relations, even if the rest of the tags are on the relation. Cheers, Chris ___

Re: [Tagging] Jewellery shop

Niklas Cholmkvist wrote: Hi, I have seen http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:shop=jewelry Undoubtedly the spelling is not acceptable in en_IN On wiktionary there is info that jewellery is a chiefly US spelling. source: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wiktionary/en/wiki/jewelry I

Re: [Tagging] emergency=*

John Smith wrote: On 30 July 2010 02:59, Chris Hill o...@raggedred.net wrote: Firstly, not all hospitals are emergency hospitals, so I think that is a bad idea. Point taken... Secondly John, you seem to have unilaterally decided to make this change, and actually implemented some

Re: [Tagging] tagging single trees

Nop, Thanks for adding tags to trees in my locality. I assume from the fixme tag (fixme = set better denotation) on each tree that you think I should be denoting something about the tree. I added a type, a botanical name (name:botanical), I gathered the data from a survey on the ground, oh

Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs

On 01/02/11 11:48, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: How do you tag single (historic) burial places? I am currently looking for a tagging scheme to structure these kind of places, but am unsure about the wording. My suggestions would be * historic=grave or * historic=tomb for the main tag. Subtags

Re: [Tagging] historic tagging - graves, tombs

On 01/02/11 12:57, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2011/2/1 Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net: What do you say about the wording? Would tomb or grave be suited better? A grave tends to be a hole dug in the ground to bury one or more bodies, a tomb is more of a structure, so they are not mutually

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - (Key:designation)

On 01/03/11 17:12, Richard Mann wrote: 24000 uses so far, so I guess it's time to put it to a vote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Designation Richard ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - Sidewalk

On 21/03/11 19:21, Serge Wroclawski wrote: [...] I suggested re-opening the sidewalk proposal because I have a specific need for this data and would like to use official, rather than unofficial tags. [deliberately off list to keep the noise down] Serge, There are, never have been and probably

Re: [Tagging] Requirements for proposals and voting to be valid

On 11/05/11 12:38, SomeoneElse wrote: On 11/05/2011 12:19, Ilya Zverev wrote: I've reverted his edits of the proposal page, but is he right? Is any proposal with incorrect subject line in tagging@ post (let along those which weren't mentioned here) automatically invalid? If so most of map

Re: [Tagging] Translating tags into the database itself ?

On 18/08/11 10:46, Pieren wrote: I just discover in the wiki the natural=tree enhancemens and especially a (new) concept about tagging translations: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tree The speciies and genus keys have to be fulfilled in latin and other tags supply translations:

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

On 19/02/12 11:56, Werner Hoch wrote: Am Sonntag, den 19.02.2012, 22:16 +1100 schrieb Steve Bennett: The proposal looks pretty sensible to me. I just wish there was a meaningful process we could follow. Probably what we really want to do is deprecate any alternative tagging schemes, and direct

Re: [Tagging] Voting for Relation type=waterway

On 19/02/12 23:38, Steve Bennett wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 2:53 AM, Chris Hillo...@raggedred.net wrote: I do not agree with the whole basis of this thread. There are no such things as approved tags, tagging is open and people are free to use *any* tags they like. ... Advertise your

Re: [Tagging] Tag approval process or its absence (was: Voting for Relation type=waterway)

On 21/02/12 09:45, Frederik Ramm wrote: I don't think that a tagging style that works best in Europe will automatically also be the one that works best in South America. Any attempt to force everyone to use the same style will automatically make the map *less* good in some places. I think that

Re: [Tagging] Tag approval process or its absence (was: Voting for Relation type=waterway)

On 21/02/12 09:50, sabas88 wrote: 2012/2/21 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org mailto:frede...@remote.org I don't think that a tagging style that works best in Europe will automatically also be the one that works best in South America. Any attempt to force everyone to use the same

Re: [Tagging] Extended Conditions - response to votes

On 05/07/12 10:59, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: [...] After the data consumers we have to look at the data creators (aka mappers): what is manageable for them? And I'm not talking from those hardcore mappers ;-) E.g. from my point of view the second variant is a no-go, as one has to add two

Re: [Tagging] Extended Conditions - response to votes

On 05/07/12 13:30, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, reading this discussion again demonstrates how useless our voting process is. It is obvious that this issue has not been thoroughly discussed, that there is no consensus about which problem exactly it should solve and what the implications for

Re: [Tagging] Extended Conditions - response to votes

On 05/07/12 13:34, Martin Vonwald (Imagic) wrote: Am 05.07.2012 um 13:49 schrieb aighes o...@aighes.de mailto:o...@aighes.de: Am 05.07.2012 12:08, schrieb Chris Hill: This really is the wrong way round. We must always consider the mapper *first*. If a scheme is too complex

Re: [Tagging] Extended Conditions - response to votes

On 06/07/12 15:15, Eckhart Wörner wrote: Hi Martin, Am Freitag, 6. Juli 2012, 14:54:01 schrieb Martin Vonwald: If you say so. So a general speed limit of 100, 80 for hgv and 70 for all in case of rain, snow and ice is crystal clear (for mappers and apps)? […] Good point. If the specificness

Re: [Tagging] Data redundancy with ref tag on ways vs relations

On 01/08/12 18:41, Petr Morávek [Xificurk] wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: Tools must serve mappers. Everything in OSM must be geared towards making contribution easy for mappers. Anything else is secondary; consumers are totally unimportant. I think, this is the point on which we fundamentally

Re: [Tagging] amenity=veterinary: size and animals

On 14/09/12 10:58, Pieren wrote: On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Martin Vonwald imagic@gmail.com wrote: What do you think? I think that the tag phone= is enough: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Phone +1 -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly

Re: [Tagging] Animal_shelter, multiple semicolon separated values?

On 19/09/12 23:16, Alberto wrote: Hi everybody, what do you think about using multiple comma separated values in a key (see http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Semi-colon_value_separator)? In particular about the new proposal “amenity=animal_shelter”. Suppose we need to set a subkey that

Re: [Tagging] Animal_shelter, multiple semicolon separated

On 20/09/12 14:38, Alberto wrote: We are looking for a general tag that comprehends all facilities that can host animals of any kind and for any purpose. Why? We don't label hospital and hotel in the same way, with some extra tags to describe them. They are both places people stay for a

Re: [Tagging] Mechanical Edit: fix japanese train stations wikipedia/names fields

On 14/10/12 17:09, Fabien SK wrote: [snip] My japanese is too bad to write on the jp mailing list :-) If you can't ask the local mappers what they think about your mechanical edit then I would suggest that you don't do it. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly

Re: [Tagging] How to tag: Legally separated ways

On 16/10/12 11:48, Simone Saviolo wrote: 2012/10/16 Colin Smale colin.sm...@xs4all.nl mailto:colin.sm...@xs4all.nl There's maybe a difference between the case of two lanes in the same direction, and two lanes in opposite directions. There's none. If a solid line is painted between

Re: [Tagging] Tagging GB railway stations and track

On 07/11/12 13:03, Peter Hicks wrote: All, I'm part of a group of people who are working to get a richer set of metadata attached to the railway network in Great Britain, specifically: - Tagging railway stations with the three-letter CRS (computer reservation system) codes, which is

Re: [Tagging] Fixed caravan site

On 18/11/12 17:24, ael wrote: On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 12:22:00AM +0100, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: or tag it with place=hamlet, village or neighbourhood (not sure about the size of these trailer parks and if they're isolated or part of a settlement)? Thanks for all the replies. In the UK

Re: [Tagging] SF Muni tram lines are layer=1?

On 17/12/12 06:50, Clay Smalley wrote: I noticed the majority of the trackage of the San Francisco Muni lines are tagged as layer=1, while the streets along which they run have no layer tag (an implied layer=0). If the Muni lines are layer=1, it is my understanding that the Muni lines should

Re: [Tagging] Source tag - deprecated for use on objects?

On 02/01/13 12:50, dies38...@mypacks.net wrote: I have been told ( on the talk-US email list ) that use of {{key|source}} on objects has been deprecated for years and that such information is only of historical interest and its use should be restricted to changesets. This is not reflected in

Re: [Tagging] Is the difference between power station and sub station clear?

On 24/01/13 14:02, Andrew Errington wrote: On Thu, 24 Jan 2013 18:40:05 François Lacombe wrote: Ok, I agree with you about substation vs sub_station. Consensus seems to emerge from this discussion, I would edit the wiki like polderrunner explained. * Deprecation (not removal) of

Re: [Tagging] tower vs mast vs antenna

On 16/02/13 20:28, John F. Eldredge wrote: Deanna Earley d...@earlsoft.co.uk wrote: On 07/02/2013 09:49, o...@raggedred.net wrote: A tower, to this Brit, can be confused with the stone or brick thing on the end of a church or castle Especially as another well known mapping agency over here

Re: [Tagging] fire_hydrant extensions proposal

On 09/03/13 19:07, Richard Welty wrote: i've started drafting a proposal for some tags to extend the fire_hydrant tagging system. i have a question for the non-US mappers... in the US, the American Water Works Association has a classification system dividing hydrants into 4 groups based on

Re: [Tagging] Proposed relation give_way

On 14/03/13 14:43, Simone Saviolo wrote: I noticed that the proposal for a give_way type relationship [1] has been in draft for nine solid years. It seems a great solution to the current limitations of highway=give_way and highway=stop, also because it reuses a tagging scheme that is widely

Re: [Tagging] Bridges redux

On 10/05/13 11:24, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Christopher Hoess wrote: Specifically, what made me switch was thinking about renderers, routers, and other consumers of the data. OSM's most valuable resource is mappers. We should therefore optimise tagging schemes for ease of mapping. +1 I

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Animal_breeding

Voting is pointless and gives tags an air or importance they do not deserve - there are *no* approved tags, just tags people use. Discussing and documenting tags is good, but voting is just daft, especially when the quorum is just 15 out of about 15000 regular mappers. If you like the tag and

Re: [Tagging] Childcare Tag

There are no approved tags in OSM. You can use any tag you want, so if the childcare tags suit you, use them. I agree that discussion and documentation are very helpful, but a few negative votes (even thousands of negative votes) cannot stop the tag being used. There are no tag police, no

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - RFC - Power transmission refinement

Bryce Nesbitt bry...@obviously.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 6:16 AM, François Lacombe francois.laco...@telecom-bretagne.eu wrote: I've understood your point of view, nevertheless I won't change that key point of the proposal. Votes will tell me if I'm right... or wrong. Your

Re: [Tagging] Power poles tower : power vs man_made

I would prefer that you didn't pretend we will deprecate a tag so widely used just so a small proportion of them can have another power tag on it when we can easily just add transformer=yes or something similar. Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Il giorno 13/ago/2013, alle ore

Re: [Tagging] Proposal for new tag: landuse=plot

On 18/09/13 18:15, Lukas Hornby wrote: HI, Having studied all of the comments, we seem to agree that a tag is needed, that it is worth tagging. However the ambiguity over plot (which was the word I used in my proposal and lot (which has been read into plot) seems to be a sticking point. I

Re: [Tagging] Primary or Trunk?

On 02/11/13 18:47, Jonathan wrote: This question is really aimed at UK roads but the same may apply to other countries. I'm not clear with the distinction of a Trunk road in the UK. The wiki suggests a trunk road is high performance roads that don't meet the requirement for highway

Re: [Tagging] Propose the tag shop=military_surplus

On 06/12/13 13:20, SomeoneElse wrote: Axelos wrote: The wiki is not intended to suggest tags to make homogeneous the database ? The wiki's an excellent place for documenting tag usage, but one of the things hugely in OSM's favour is that there's no enforced list of legal tags - if

Re: [Tagging] Proposal - Voting finished - Gambling

Which just shows, yet again, how phoney and pointless voting is. I don't have a strong opinion on the proposal, but no big objections, so I've just added my yes vote in order that the voting threshold is not a problem. --- cheers, Chris osm user, chillly

Re: [Tagging] layer=-1, rivers, bridges and tunnels

On 21/04/14 21:20, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2014-04-21 20:48 GMT+02:00 Richard Z. ricoz@gmail.com mailto:ricoz@gmail.com: Without any additional tags like tunnel=* or covered=*, a layer=-1 river shouldn't be rendered differently than a layer=1 or even in the

Re: [Tagging] Feature proposal - Power transmission refinement - RFC 2

On 21/07/14 22:00, François Lacombe wrote: Hi Gentlemen, [snip] Thanks in advance for any feedbacks. Are women forbidden from commenting? -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published

-1 'Endorsed' is just another way of saying approved. We need to remove this status that 'some authority' has given their blessing to use the tag. 'Published' is a useful statement which demonstrates community discussion and some consensus but nothing else. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly

Re: [Tagging] Proposal: Rename wiki status Approved to Published

On 03/04/15 17:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote: I appreciate your effort to bring more clarity in the different wiki statuses. However, I don't think changing the status 'Approved' to 'Published' is a good idea. In my opinion, 'approved' is exactly what it is: a proposal approved by the OSM

Re: [Tagging] Tag:natural=tree and taxon names

On 27/04/15 16:44, Andy Mabbett wrote: The wiki page for Tag:natural=tree: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:natural%3Dtree includes: taxon=* and: species=* genus=* The latter pair is a subset of the former; and thus redundant. How should this be resolved? It's often

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - Voting - Reception Desk.

On 21/06/15 15:44, Kotya Karapetyan wrote: It's really a pity if the proposal will be rejected. Its need is clear, even though the exact wording may not be perfect. But do we need to have a /perfect/ proposal before we can get anything? I would suggest to those who oppose it to accept it and

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On 24/08/15 18:56, François Lacombe wrote: Hi Mateusz, It seems this tag is a combination of waterway=canal and disused=yes. I'm not so in favor of such value (derelict_canal). There are two different information in one value. I think that 'disused=yes' is a dangerous tag and should be

Re: [Tagging] waterway=derelict_canal

On 26/08/15 13:44, Dave F. wrote: A pub that's closed down it's still recognisable as a pub. It's not a park bench or a multi-storey car park. It's just closed. This should be described in sub tags. No, a pub that is closed is simply not open for business until it reopens the next day. A

Re: [Tagging] Swimming pools

On 19/12/15 21:04, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 19 December 2015 at 17:42, ael wrote: An aquatic centre would normally contain aquaria with typically sea creatures, often associated with research. A sort of sea-museum. Definitely no swimming pool, although I suppose

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

On 20/11/15 15:19, GerdP wrote: Hi all, I've noticed that a few (940) traffic_calmings are mapped as highway=traffic_calming , most of them also have the tag traffic_calming=*, but ~ 10% did not. The vast majority (> 212000) of the nodes tagged traffic_calming=* is not also tagged

Re: [Tagging] improve tagging of traffic_calming

On 20/11/15 16:47, Gerd Petermann wrote: So you think that every node tagged traffic_calming=* should additionally be tagged with highway=traffic_calming? That would mean we have >99% traffic_calming nodes with incorrect tagging. I think you misunderstand OSM. Your assumption of

Re: [Tagging] Marking climbing proposal as "in use"

On 29/01/16 10:17, Anders Fougner wrote: Den 29.01.2016 10.47, skrev Tom Pfeifer: Den 29.01.2016 02.21, skrev Mike Thompson: What one person may aid, another may free (I am using "free climbing" in the US sense [1]). > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_climbing that wikipedia page is

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

On 18/03/16 17:38, Daniel Koć wrote: I have just read on WeeklyOSM that OpenRailwayMap may start to use importance=* tag for ranking railway stations instead of railway:station_category=* : http://lists.openrailwaymap.org/archives/openrailwaymap/2016-March/000408.html The proposition is 7

Re: [Tagging] surface earth vs ground vs dirt

On 12/04/16 16:43, Viking wrote: Hello. What’s about bringing surface=ground, surface=dirt and surface=earth to the unique and most used tag surface=ground, as discussed here [1]? Too few distinctions, too much confusion. And it has been already discussed in this mailing list [2]. So,

Re: [Tagging] highway=service major type sub-classification - mini vote

On 17/04/16 16:33, ael wrote: In en_US, alley is generally a road where you can drive, but which is so Here British usage is different. You can seldom drive on a alley. It may be the historical root is the same: in the days of narrow horse-drawn vehicles, maybe an alley would allow passage and

Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge

Wait until spring to see if it is really dead? :-) -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 13/02/2017 20:13, Marc Gemis wrote: How do you map a dead hedge? As barrier=hedge or barrier=fence with some appropriate fence_type e.g. dead_hedge ? m

Re: [Tagging] Dead hedge

Do we need a new term? Surely a wooden fence is made of dead trees? It's a fence. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 13/02/2017 20:41, John F. Eldredge wrote: Well, I just learned a term I didn't know. I had assumed you were referring to a regular, planted hedge in which all of the bushes

Re: [Tagging] Representing "altimetric quotas" in OSM

A point that has a height recorded but not much else is sometimes known as a spot height. Not sure there are any tagged as such, but maybe place=spot_height or natural=spot_height ... cheers, Chris (chillly) On 17/01/2017 17:13, Nelson A. de Oliveira wrote: I really don't know if the proper

Re: [Tagging] Tagging of Country Names

How would you propose making this change? Cheers, Chris (chillly) On 25 October 2016 16:02:05 BST, Sven Geggus wrote: >Hello, > >in our localized German map style we try to render Country names in >German >with local name in parenthesis. > >This works fine for a lot

Re: [Tagging] Hunting area tagging

On 24/10/16 09:54, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: 2016-10-23 11:48 GMT+02:00 Warin <61sundow...@gmail.com >: And reiterate your words " in case of a dedicated area" and mine "For an area dedicated to the hunting of game then landuse=hunting" .. I think

Re: [Tagging] Wrong use of landuse=village_green - but what else to use?

doesn't stop someone micro mapping to add more detail. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 11/01/2017 21:40, Warin wrote: And I disagree with all of them being leisure=garden. The green patches between a road and a footway are not 'leisure' things .. they are 'safety' things .. particularly

Re: [Tagging] Mapping leats

A leat is a very specific thing. It is certainly not a canal, but neither is it a ditch nor drain. I would favour waterway=leat. That describes, unambiguously, exactly what it is. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 21/04/2017 12:20, Christoph Hormann wrote: On Friday 21 April 2017, John

Re: [Tagging] Golf tag combinations

push towards vector maps bears fruit, displaying specific items for your own needs should become easier. If Richard succeeds, then an OBE should follow his recent award! Well done Richard. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 01/08/2018 23:49, Paul Allen wrote: On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 11:03 PM

Re: [Tagging] Telephone exchange

with a friendly message asking what they were trying to do and suggesting more widely used tags if that seems useful, but don't force a change. As a data consumer, I think that any value on a key that I don't specifically use is the same as key=yes, so I would treat building=central office in t

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

wall bars, ropes and other gym equipment of the day. The gym was used as an exam hall at some times of year. The gym is no more. So I think there is a place for both, but as always, local knowledge helps in building accurate map data. -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 05/09/2019 16:21

Re: [Tagging] Draft proposal for Key:aerodrome

private pilots for fun (usually termed 'general aviation') and for a few ad-hoc commercial flights: specialist cargo, on-off passenger runs, a base for filming flights etc. Private pilots make international flights from all kinds of airfields all the time, so I'm not sure that's a useful distin

Re: [Tagging] Adding leisure=sports_hall to leisure=sports_centre page

On 05/09/2019 23:29, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: On Fri, 6 Sep 2019 at 03:08, Chris Hill <mailto:o...@raggedred.net>> wrote: It's a sports hall I think because it is marked out for various indoor sports,e.g. badminton, volley ball, 5-a-side football etc, with curtain

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (Phone)

strength of OSM tagging is that mappers can find ways to represent this. If we march down the homogenisation highway much of that strength will be lost. I oppose deprecating contact:phone=* -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 28/09/2019 09:31, Valor Naram wrote: Hey, now I'm ready to open a new

Re: [Tagging] Feature Proposal - RFC - (contact:phone)

it forward as a plan and it got rejected. To simply reverse the polarity of the vote and call it a new vote is a joke. Just let this go, please. What part of 'No' don't you understand? -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) ___ Tagging mailing list

Re: [Tagging] Roundtrip and closed loop in relations

trip. HTH Chris -- cheers Chris Hill (chillly) On 19/12/2019 22:48, Phake Nick wrote: Merriam Webster and some other resources you have quoted are dictionary for American English, not the variant of English used by OSM. Posts by original author of the topic on the wiki talk page have

Re: [Tagging] Deprecate water=pond?

he boundary between a lake and a pond may be hard to measure sometimes, but that doesn't mean it is useful. If we squash detail from tagging we are left with nothing. Maybe we should just tag everything as thing=yes? cheers Chris Hill (chillly)