On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Cartinus <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday 21 October 2009 15:45:49 Anthony wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 4:44 AM, Ulf Lamping <[email protected]> > wrote: >> > A former cafe can be helpful as a landmark as well. Especially when it's >> > a free standing building (e.g. in a forest) near a larger city, which is >> > not that uncommon in germany. >> >> So propose landmark=cafe. Much easier than changing the definitions >> of both amenity and amenity=cafe. > > Nobody is changing any definitions. They are just using a combination of two > existing and widely used tags. Much, much easier than writing a proposal for > a new tag.
If nobody is changing any definitions, then tagging a former cafe with amenity=cafe is wrong on two counts. Amenity "is the primary tag for useful and important facilities for visitors and residents". amenity=cafe "is for a generally informal place with sit-down facilities selling beverages and light meals and/or snacks". _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
