On 1/3/11 10:53 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote:
2010/12/16 Steve Bennett<[email protected]>:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Richard Welty<[email protected]> wrote:
it depends on what an attraction is. i'm not averse to using it, but in the
US at least, an attraction is usually some place you park, maybe buy
tickets, and go in a building, park, etc for a more extended experience.
Yeah, but don't go thinking that every cultural stereotype surrounding
the word "attraction" has to apply to a tag of the same name.
the tradeoff here is that it's nice if tags do at some level match up
with expectations. as new mappers arrive, they don't have a history
of participating in these discussions and if we want them to stick
around, maybe we should avoid being contrary for the sake of being
contrary.
Btw, historic=yes is another candidate. Of the existing tags, that
might be the best actually.
IMHO those could both (the highway-marker and the dog) be tagged as
landmarks. Both of them do IMHO not qualify for artwork and at least
the marker is surely not an attraction (I guess also the dog is not
really a tourist attraction, but this should be judged upon with local
knowledge).
I found this page about landmarks, which seems to see landmarks only
as stuff related to navigation on the water (I would ignore this or
better amend the page):
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:landmark
i'd certainly prefer to see a more general definition of landmark which
applied to these sorts of not-exactly-an-attraction entities, as that
is certainly a normal usage of landmark.
richard
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
