Certainly not like that. I will start a new thread to discuss this idea
more in detail.
I think there's nothing wrong when we try to standardize tags and have a
moment of retagging when we have a 1:1 substitution.
-Robert-
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
From: JohanJönsson
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 6:37 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Tagging]RFC: historic:civilization and historic:period Re:new
key civilization
<robert@...> writes:
In holland we have a saying: Better to turn back halfway then get lost
at the end.
Means that if you look at the more and more popular way of tagging. It
is wiser to you this on this occassion and correct the alt fashion
tags. Last year the :right and :left subtag is a big use to a lot of
main tags like highway, cycleway and so on.
syntax: <main tag> : <sub tag> = *
Everytime creating a new main tag when you in fact want to add a sub
tag like fortification_type in stead of fortification:type is not very
efficient.
I plea for introducing the sub tag ":type" for using on fortification,
but also on e.g. museum (wild guess).
(And I think I already saw the sub tag came by: tree:type ?)
-Robert-
Citeren M?rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdreist@...>:
> 2011/1/13 <robert@...>:
>>
>> Why: fortification_type=hill_fort
>>
>> Better is: fortification:type=hill_fort
>
>
> where do you get this idea from? There are 289 fortification_type and
> 0 fortification:type in the db.
>
> cheers,
> Martin
Probably a good idea Robert.
The main idea of my post was to show Ulf that using the proposed
civilization
and civilization:period-tags shouldn't be any harder than normally. The
example
chosen by Ulf was something that probably is dealt with in:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Dcastle
and
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:historic%3Darchaeological_site
and that is where I got the tags, I did not do any own thinking ragarding
the
off-topic-tags.
Both of the wiki-pages above have plenty of.._type. Maybe a suggestion from
you
on the discussion-page would come in handy.
If you look closely on my post, you can see that I had an alternative
tagging
with tripple subtags:
historic:civilization:period:bronze age
and even another alternative with quadruple tagging
historic:civilization:Celtic:period:bronze age
I haven´t got the idea yet, but guess it isn´t supposed to be like that.
/Johan J
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tekst ingevoegd door Panda GP 2011:
Als het hier gaat om een ongevraagde e-mail (SPAM), klik dan op de volgende
link om de e-mail te herclasseren:
http://localhost:6083/Panda?ID=pav_1876&SPAM=true&path=C:\Windows\system32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Local\Panda%20Security\Panda%20Global%20Protection%202011\AntiSpam
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
