2009/12/15 Roy Wallace <[email protected]>: > Well, "complexity" is subjective here, so sorry if it seems I'm > exaggerating in this situation. But the point I'm making is that, > rather than inventing a new tag to encapsulate, e.g. "buildings that > are...a restaurant, bar, and gambling location [and] are members
These buildings are a particular type of location, they are unique in a category of there own, even if they do share features with other establishments that are currently tagged. > only", i.e. "buildings that are A, B, C and D", I personally think > tagging A, B, C and D is a more powerful solution, for reasons I've > already described. Just an idea - I'm happy to be proven wrong. But you left out important option G! _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
