>> 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 applicat
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'
H
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 info
Pieren wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst
> 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
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:53:27 +0200 (CEST), "Maarten Deen"
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 just ONE w
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.
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.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Richard Fairhurst 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 MediaWiki is a
> rub
--- On Wed, 24/6/09, Pieren 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, sports, shops,
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
_
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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM, David Earl 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 having to know it
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 re
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 t
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Ken Guest 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
> parties that
Pieren wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:19 AM, 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
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 wa
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 he
--- On Wed, 24/6/09, David Earl 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 having to know it is i
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'
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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 1:19 AM, 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 reorganization.
I would sugg
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 applicat
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
