On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 12:48 AM, Warin <[email protected]> wrote:
> In part the problem comes from the lack of organisation of keys. > Some are by form (e.g. building=) some by function (e.g. shop=) .. others > are mixed (e.g. amenity=). > > The mixed ones in particular are hard to mentally recall, organise. > Do you think a tagging schema with several different sub tags is easier ? Just use the presets in case you don't remember. Where/ how do you want to organise ? I usually use search, so I don't encounter the classification problem often. And isn't the classification problem a rather personal problem? E.g. some apps want to group pubs that serve, restaurants, fast food etc. in one category. I think OsmAnd does. Every data consumer is of course free to use a different grouping/classification from the one that is in the raw data. Also look at the reception_desk "classification" problem. Some want to classify it as amenity, others as a tourism feature. That just depends on your needs. There isn't always a classification that works for everyone. > > Reorganising is difficult .. historical inertia, personal bias and > reluctance to learn a new system lend bias against it. > Reorganisation should bring big benefits, placing e.g. fountain under tourism does not bring huge benefits IMHO. > > ------------------- > The other problem is some mappers are looking at things to do locally as > they think they have added all the available OSM features and now want new > ones. > > Reception_desk and power_sockets spring to mind ;-) > I'll agree that introducing the reception_desk key was/is problematic because of the choice of the top level tag. On the other hand I do not see why we couldn't tag some of them as amenity and others as tourism and have both documented. It's pretty easy for data consumers to support both. Take a look at e.g. historic places. They support all kind of combination for the same things (building=farm, historic=yes or just historic=farm). They process the data before putting it on the map, so those things appear the same for the users of that map. As I understood the power_sockets problem is that some want to generalize the "power_socket" concept. Do we always have to try to find the most general concept and add X number of subtags to say what we really want to say ? Or can we sometimes just live with the specialty object (charging place for cars). I think the use cases are important, when I'm looking for something to charge my car, I won't be looking for a socket where I can charge a computer, and vice versa. Two totally different use cases. In those situations I would accept a specialty tag for each of them. I know the world is not black and white and in many cases it will be harder to decide on a general tag with subtags or a specialty tag. regards m
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
