Yes Mateusz, +1 from me, sounds good - Dan 2015-02-19 8:00 GMT+00:00 Mateusz Konieczny <matkoni...@gmail.com>: > I think that attraction=maze is better than attraction:type (shorter, > without colon, "type" is not > really adding anything useful, clear detailing of tourism=attraction). > > 2015-02-19 3:59 GMT+01:00 Bryce Nesbitt <bry...@obviously.com>: >> >> If it's of interest to outsiders it seems like an attraction. Thus how >> about: >> >> >> tourism=attraction >> attraction:type=maze >> name=Happy Tunnel Kiddie Maze >> website=http://maze.example.org/ >> >> >> You want all those similar features (maze/tube hill/ride/garden/water >> park/whatever) to show up on a tourism/visitor type map. >> This is also a clear case where the existing maze tags could be mass >> retagged to the new scheme. >> >> ----------------------- >> You just want to be clear if a given feature is PART of a larger >> "attraction" (e.g. >> one ride in a water park), or if it's the high level feature (e.g. the >> water park itself). >> See also http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Tag:tourism%3Dtheme_park >> and the associated tagging. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Tagging mailing list >> Tagging@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
