On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:19 AM, greg...@arenius.com wrote:
What do people think? I know that there are a bazillion amenity tags
already in use but I think that going forward a better organized system
will be worth the effort of implementing it.
I think the whole wiki page needs
On 24/06/2009 10:27, Pieren wrote:
I think the whole wiki page needs reorganization.
I would suggest to move the full list of tags into subpages (one for
landuse, one for amenity, etc) and keep on Map Features only the top
5 or 10 most popular tags of each category.
Doing this, the wiki page
On 24/06/2009 00:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
greg...@arenius.com wrote:
What do people think?
I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system
you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people
(ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big
--- On Wed, 24/6/09, David Earl da...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Please don't do that! If you're not sure what category
something comes
under, it's really hard to find if it is on a page
organised by
category. If I want a windmill, say, I can search for
windmill as things
stand without
David Earl wrote:
On 24/06/2009 00:43, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
greg...@arenius.com wrote:
What do people think?
I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system
you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people
(ab)using it to their heart's content, so
A better exercise, I think, would be to create an A4 sized cheatsheet of
common POIs and how they should generally be tagged - something that people
can print out and laminate to either use themselves or distribute at mapping
parties that could be used as an aid for when one is out mapping and
Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:19 AM, greg...@arenius.com wrote:
What do people think? I know that there are a bazillion amenity tags
already in use but I think that going forward a better organized system
will be worth the effort of implementing it.
I think
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Ken Guestk...@linux.ie wrote:
A better exercise, I think, would be to create an A4 sized cheatsheet of
common POIs and how they should generally be tagged - something that people
can print out and laminate to either use themselves or distribute at mapping
Hi,
I quite like the idea. For people, who think about using OSM data in
their project, clarity of tag structure might be an important issue.
I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system
you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people
(ab)using it to
On 24/06/2009 11:39, Radomír Černoch wrote:
The question is whether to choose chaos or less chaos. I think
it's still a significant difference. Are there any serious reasons
why not to bother?
Yes, because it means changing all the editors, all the renderers and
other consumers and relearning
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM, David Earlda...@frankieandshadow.com wrote:
Please don't do that! If you're not sure what category something comes
under, it's really hard to find if it is on a page organised by
category. If I want a windmill, say, I can search for windmill as things
stand
Pieren Pieren wrote:
I think the whole wiki page needs
to be taken outside and shot.
Arguing over the presentation on the wiki isn't really the issue. What the
tags are, and how they're documented, are two separate things. But like Ævar
says, talk is cheap, and though many of us feel strongly
gregory at arenius.com writes:
Death:
*Graveyard
*Crematorium
I think there is some difference between a graveyard and a churchyard, so the
latter should also be a tag.
Education:
*School
*College
*Library
*University
Also need nursery/preschool.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Pieren pier...@gmail.com wrote:
When the wiki pages are well structured (and named), you
can use the
search function, type windmill and you find the right
page.
I simply cannot imagine how far the Map Features page will
be extended
to list all possible amenities,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote:
Arguing over the presentation on the wiki isn't really the issue. What the
tags are, and how they're documented, are two separate things. But like Ævar
says, talk is cheap, and though many of us feel strongly that
Pieren wrote:
I'm not talking about the whole wiki, just the Map Features page.
As was I.
cheers
Richard
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Proposed-Amenity-Reorganization-tp24176224p24183557.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Pieren schrieb:
I would suggest to move the full list of tags into subpages (one for
landuse, one for amenity, etc) and keep on Map Features only the top
5 or 10 most popular tags of each category.
Doing this, the wiki page is much smaller but still gives a good idea
of each category.
Less
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:53:27 +0200 (CEST), Maarten Deen md...@xs4all.nl
wrote:
A reason to do better categorizations would be to ease conversion to
mobile
(or online) routeplanners, which already have some sort of categorization
in
amenities.
Please give examples here.
Are you sure there is
Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net
wrote:
Arguing over the presentation on the wiki isn't really the issue. What the
tags are, and how they're documented, are two separate things. But like Ævar
says, talk is cheap, and though many of us feel
greg...@arenius.com schrieb:
The amenity key is currently used for so many different things that it has
no meaning.
Indeed. But that's no problem, because the key amenity don't
bear some information of an object.
You can waive amenity and you may only say school=yes without
loss of
I have commented on several points that have been raised.
*Death
To start with that is the wrong word to be using. I am not sure what
you should use. Imagine saying to the wife 'Just need to go to the
funeral to bury dad so I will search OSM, category Death then search
for the funeral homes'
A reason to do better categorizations would be to ease conversion to
mobile
(or online) routeplanners, which already have some sort of
categorization
in
amenities.
Please give examples here.
Are you sure there is just ONE way to categorize and that not
every second application(not just
The amenity key is currently used for so many different things that it has
no meaning. It has become a catch all category for everything that
doesn't have a place elsewhere. I'm proposing breaking it up into more
keys to help make things more organized.
Proposed keys:
*Amenity
*Death
Hi,
greg...@arenius.com wrote:
What do people think?
I think why bother. Clearly what we have is chaotic, but any system
you can think of will become chaotic sooner or later with people
(ab)using it to their heart's content, so what's the big deal.
If you're so intent on giving structure to
Am Mittwoch 24 Juni 2009 schrieb Frederik Ramm:
Hi,
greg...@arenius.com wrote:
What do people think?
you are not the first to suggest something like that ;-)
I also think that a change would be fine, but my approach was a little bit
different. anyway, I'm using my scheme in my application
25 matches
Mail list logo
