On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 09:34, Martin Koppenhoefer
<dieterdre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am Di., 14. Jan. 2020 um 15:16 Uhr schrieb Jarek Piórkowski 
> <ja...@piorkowski.ca>:
>> On Tue, 14 Jan 2020 at 03:48, Martin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>> > Lets see tags more like a programming language and less like natural 
>> > language.
>> Here's how the mappers have seen the tags in question so far,
>> according to Taginfo:
>> oneway:foot=no 1267 occurrences (not all from one region)
>> [everything else on oneway:foot, foot:oneway, foot:backward and foot:forward 
>> less than 100 uses per tag]
> what is your interpretation of these numbers?
> Mine goes like this: leading the list is the completely meaningless (and I 
> guess most will agree with this judgement) oneway:foot=no with 1267 
> occurences. Let me put this in relation to the 15 Million oneway=* and 11.6 M 
> oneway=yes. All other variants reach not even 100 global uses.
> IMHO with such tiny numbers we should choose a representation that best works 
> for us, rather than let us guide from statistics without a sufficiently large 
> basis.

I was mostly interested in what "tagging scheme" people have come up
with on their own, in absence of wiki/tagging list guidance. These
tags were spread across Europe (and some smattering elsewhere in the
world) so it's unlikely to be a single editor or an import driving
this. "Folksonomy" was a term for this a while back.

I agree that oneway:foot=no is a redundant tag in vast majority of
cases. However it is illustrative of how people reason about this
property and what tag name feels natural to them.


Tagging mailing list

Reply via email to