Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems

2015-05-14 Thread Daniel Koć
W dniu 13.05.2015 23:56, pmailkeey . napisał(a): Orchard. Natural or man-made ? Does it even matter, it's just orchard. Building IS man-made but does not come under man made. And building is also kind of area (especially if it's large)... Regarding this and removing amenity=* namespace - yes,

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems

2015-05-13 Thread pmailkeey .
Orchard. Natural or man-made ? Does it even matter, it's just orchard. Building IS man-made but does not come under man made. -- Mike. @millomweb - For all your info on Millom and South Copeland via *the area's premier website - * *cur

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems

2015-05-13 Thread Daniel Koć
W dniu 13.05.2015 18:24, Bryce Nesbitt napisał(a): On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: I'm not convinced that such a generic approach will help to get unambiguous tagging, e.g. children + education + building (= school building) -> architectural school? language school?

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems (was: shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets)

2015-05-13 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:46 AM, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote: > > I'm not convinced that such a generic approach will help to get > unambiguous tagging, e.g. > children + education + building (= school building) -> architectural > school? language school? ... > vehicle + education (= driving school

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems

2015-05-13 Thread Daniel Koć
W dniu 13.05.2015 10:46, Martin Koppenhoefer napisał(a): I'm not convinced that such a generic approach will help to get unambiguous tagging, e.g. Preface first (sorry, just jump to the *** section if not interested =} )... One thing is sure for me - there's no way to avoid ambiguity when c

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems (was: shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets)

2015-05-13 Thread Martin Koppenhoefer
2015-05-13 0:32 GMT+02:00 Daniel Koć : > children + education + building (= school building) > vehicle + education (= driving school) > area + tree (= forest/wood) > building + sleep (= hotel/hostel/...) > I'm not convinced that such a generic approach will help to get unambiguous tagging, e.g.

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems

2015-05-12 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Daniel Koć wrote: > > That said the google approach would be to infer everything from text, >> social and web linking analysis: >> name=Fred's Bakery >> website=http://freds.example.org/ [1] >> > > As we already have these informations, we could just ignore the r

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Koć
W dniu 13.05.2015 0:56, Bryce Nesbitt napisał(a): Something that gets proposed from time to time is a tree hierarchy: shop=food:bakery:muffins+sweets:cookie So what are the reasons it does not catch up? I think the downside of this example is that it would be tedious and too detailed for peop

Re: [Tagging] General tagging system problems (was: shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets)

2015-05-12 Thread Bryce Nesbitt
Something that gets proposed from time to time is a tree hierarchy: shop=food:bakery:muffins+sweets:cookie That said the google approach would be to infer everything from text, social and web linking analysis: name=Fred's Bakery website=http://freds.example.org/ __

[Tagging] General tagging system problems (was: shop=confectionery / pastry / candy / sweets)

2015-05-12 Thread Daniel Koć
W dniu 12.05.2015 21:50, Michał Brzozowski napisał(a): 1) Don't reinvent the wheel. See how "competitors" have tackled a problem (Gonna elaborate very widely on that when I'll have enough examples and time to write). I don't know the competition and I'm curious how do they deal with it. After