I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that represent composite keys (e.g. "serviced" === "standard + shower + power"). Over time, the definition of such values becomes more and more convoluted (e.g. how do I tag a campsite that is "standard + shower"? Introduce another bloody campsite=* value, of course!). This also introduces unnecessary complexity that makes the data harder to use (e.g. an app that allows search for showers suddenly needs to know about the definition of campsite=serviced).
I've made this point several times over the last several years, but either I haven't made it effectively, or I'm wrong. On Sat, May 2, 2015 at 3:39 PM, David Bannon <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, 2015-05-02 at 14:36 +1000, Ian Sergeant wrote: > > Hi, > > > > My only observation would be that in Australia toilets and no water > > seems a very common combination at camp grounds. You know the kind of > > campground I'm talking about, with either drop toilets or unpotable > > water. > > > Thanks Ian. The 'standard' level has water, not necessarily potable or > drinking water. So much of your use case is covered. > > Some effort was put in to minimise the number of steps. Too many and the > idea would be unwieldy. So that call had to be made. > > I reckon at least 95% of camps with a toilet also had water, probably > better. So we are playing the odds ! > > Please consider voting ! > > david > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
