W dniu 12.03.2015 1:39, Warin napisał(a):
In the long term there needs to be a good understanding of what scheme/system/philosophy is to be used, and it needs to be Documented with a capital D. If that is done by a committe or a loose group the doucumentation still needs to be done .. and done before some redefining tags if an over all scheme/system/philosophy is too succeed.
I don't care for "committee" as much as I care for top-down attitude. +1 - we have to recap our knowledge of core tagging concepts, document it and _only then_ make a re-implementation. Some things we already know in general (IMHO) is that:
1. It should be more uniform (like "amenity=school" -> "landuse=school" for the school areas).
2. It should be more cascading/hierarchical (like in "construction=highway + highway=service + service=parking_aisle").
3. It should be more granular (no more "amenity=green_poodle_with_6_legs", just because it's a very common case! Rather "amenity=poodle + colour=green + legs=6").
4. It should allow mixing different forms and functions (like in "building=church + amenity=place_of_worship", because they can be disconnected, like "building=church + tourism=museum").
5. It should treat parallel types of objects as first class citizens (kind of "amenity=police + amenity=school" for police academy should be possible, since this amenity is equally a teaching place _and_ a police place - the same for multiple names: we can make it "name=A;B" if really needed, but the semicolon is our last resort and there's no consensus if we should use numbering schemes like "name1=A + name2=B" or "name:1=A + name:2=B" instead).
-- Piaseczno Miasto Wąskotorowe _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
