Am 13.10.2010 10:30, schrieb Lennard:
On 13-10-2010 9:43, Peter Körner wrote:
I contacted him and we're still in a very interesting discussion. His
opinion is, that the map-features should list the *most common used*
features and it's clear that with 500 uses, craft does not fall into
this category. So I can accept this tag not being listed on map-features
but findable via a the search. This is a definition problem of what
should be on the map-features page.
And how exactly would the craft tag become widely used if people have to
out on a limb to find it, exactly because it's not mentioned in the Map
Features? This will only hamper adoption.
The same way as other features that are in common use and (even still)
not listed on Map Features (like the ski piste stuff).
If people want to use such a feature, it will be often mentioned in the
ML and alike as a possible solution.
If people actually like the concept, they will use it often -> which
makes it *then* a good candidate for Map Features.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not against craft.
It just happened too often that people added (sometimes bogus) stuff to
Map Features just because they wanted it to be used more often or widely
known - and then the real discussions even started.
It should be the other way round: Map Features should contain stuff that
already *is* in wide use, not what should become.
Regards, ULFL
P.S: In fact I like most of the craft entries and think craft is a good
addition to existing features. So my feeling is that it will be used
often, so there should be enough entries in OSM to be added to Map
Features pretty soon - but not yet :-)
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
