On Sun, 2015-05-03 at 08:41 +1000, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: > I have an ideological objection to introducing key values that > represent composite keys (e.g. "serviced" === "standard + shower +
Yes Waldo, I do understand this point. But conversely, its useful to look closely at the problem from a map user's point of view. We identified, in a few emails, twenty plus characteristics of camp sites that would interest people. There are undoubtedly a lot more ! No possible, in any readable way, to render something like this. Either all the icons appear on top of each other or, most are discarded. And imagine just how many columns need be added to the render database. Not going to happen. But, speaking to campers around the world, it emerged that the scheme on the proposal adequately described a large percentage of camp sites AND a large percentage of end users needs. Its how campers describe sites amongst themselves. The assumption being the 'other' things probably come along at the appropriate level. So this proposal is about providing information to the end user (of typically a map). Its not mapping for the renderer but is about mapping in such a way that the data is usable. And no reason to assume using this tag will discourage tagging of the individual features. Indeed, in typical usage, once a user identifies a likely camp site, they will drill down in some way and look at the details. Your concern seems to be about "feature creep", I really cannot guarantee that won't happen but assure you the designers don't plan any such behaviour at this stage. Quite the converse. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Camp_Site David > 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 > <dban...@internode.on.net> 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 > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > > > _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au