2015-03-13 0:33 GMT+01:00 Daniel Koć <daniel@koć.pl>: > The schoolyard is not that different than churchyard or even industrial > area. There can be some special facilities inside (pitch, cemetery, > warehouse) that can have special purposes (recreation, religious cult, > storing goods) - or not at all, but basically they are just a space > belonging to some entity and often surrounding some buildings. >
indeed, man_made=works is working the same way as amenity=school, it is used on the whole area, and also place_of_worship is used on the whole sacred area (which typically coincides with the church). > > In the current state of things we have to know how to treat each type of > "*yard", but that way you loose the feeling there is a logic behind it for me the logic is simple: use the tag on the whole area to which it applies. > > Tags combinations gives you the ability to match some "half-baked" objects > (like deconsecrated church) we actually do this. We have tags for buildings, that are just about buildings, and we have tags for functions, that can be inside buildings, or outside, or both, etc. and we have attributes, which can be added to those objects to further describe them. > or the object you have only partial knowledge about (service=food). or highway=road (wouldn't suggest the tag service=food, as service is used for service roads). > You can combine them into common cases, but in current tagging scheme you > can't say what is unusual in otherwise plain object - you have to invent > new tags. It's easy to add features to the object, but how could we > "subtract" them? you shouldn't "subtract" IMHO, because this will become impossible to parse. This sounds like amenity=drinking_water, drinkable=no to me, or the keys "disused", "abandoned", "ruins", etc. that are deprecated for good reason. Let's forget about "tags" as we know it (or any tags, because redesigned > system can look way different) and think about "primitives" or "bricks": > I think you are talking about a different project ;-) > So you could search all the "school + children_facilities" (let's say that > would be the combination for a typical school) as easy as it's now, but if > you would like to make a "children map" you can just search all the > "children_facilities" - while now you have to enumerate every type of such > things and there's "potentially infinite number of such additional tags", > because there will be facility for almost every kind of children's activity. > You are trying to reinvent a language, but I think you miss an important fact: language only works with context (also very important: order and grammar, subject predicate object etc.) - even if you understand every single word of someone speaking in a foreign language with a different cultural background (or maybe in an antique text), you will not understand the meaning of the text. For example ancient Greek democracy, everybody had one vote - ehm wait, everybody? No, women and slaves not, obviously, but who would consider them to be included in "everybody"? ;-). If tags become universally usable and derive their meaning from other tags, they will loose their meaning at all (IMHO) and we will end up in a big mess. > > As you see my vision is not completely different. I would like to keep the > best things we have now (standard objects library) with opening gates for > simpler building bricks to not fall deeper into the trap of countless > "cases" with no clear general rules. > yes, sometimes (in quite rare occassions) our "top level" tags are indeed very specific, and would benefit from more hierarchy (more generic top level tag, with one level subtag) Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
