joost schouppe <joost.schou...@gmail.com> writes:

> While this all makes sense, I wonder why something like fair_trade doesn't
> follows that logic too.

That's a good point.  I don't think there is any justification for it
being different.  But, "fair trade" is obviously a political point of
view and there already was an established custom in much of society of
using it as a mark of a particular certifying body.  So the issue of
"what does this mean" was less acute.  I'm not saying that means
treating "fair trade" itself as a fact in tagging is ok (v.s. treating
"organization foo declared X to be certified as fair trade", which is a
fact).

> So, for example, certification:oxfam=yes for shops
> selling fair trade products certified by Oxfam. Which leads me to think
> that we need a double subtag (oh dear):
>
> certification:waste_policy:zero-waste.org=yes
> certification:fair_trade:oxfam=yes

Yes, that sounds entirely rational.  We should keep in mind that we are
designing tags to be produced by humans with computer help and consumed
by computer programs.   So well-organized and semantically clear really
is the biggest concern.

> And also that some kind of "general waste policy" tag is needed.

Perhaps.  But what the world really needs is not data in OSM but signs
in front of every waste receptable with really clear instructions.  I am
increasingly see people standing at a bunch of bins trying to figure out
what to do!

> Anyway, we're meeting someone who works with one of these organisations
> soon, maybe some new info that can help us here will come from that.

OK, but keep in mind that organizations that promote certifications
are likely to have a very biased view of their place in the world...

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

Reply via email to