Am So., 7. Okt. 2018 um 15:45 Uhr schrieb François Lacombe < [email protected]>:
> > Le sam. 6 oct. 2018 à 01:24, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > a écrit : > >> It is not just the function. If you see a watch tower, you know it’s a >> watch tower, there might be different types, in a prison, at a border etc. >> but they are all watch towers. > > > With this logic, all objects in OSM would be mapped with a unique tag. > object=black_road_with_cycle_lanes_in_each_direction. > > A watch tower is as complex as a road with several features, not a simple > object. > I don't get why a power tower can't be used as communication and watch > tower also. > > Experience shows us that providing tagging assemblies is more > comprehensive, versatile and sustainable. > man_made=tower + usage=watch + material=wood sounds better than > man_made=wooden_watch_tower > yes, there is always and for everything the question how describe it. And any decision can be questioned because there are infinite alternative ways of classification. What is the desirable depth and specificy of the tags/classes? From my point of view, "tower" is too generic to make sense. In general: if you can leave the "main tag" out and have the same amount of information, it is not needed. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
