2012/1/11 Serge Wroclawski
> parking=* requires amenity=parking.
>
> That seems entirely redundant to me, and if I were king, I'd strip out
> amenity=parking.
> (the whole parking scheme needs re-design to integrate the various
> schemes currently in place).
>
> - Serge
This should be part of r
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 17:28, sabas88 wrote:
> 2012/1/11 Michael Krämer
>>
>> To be honest I haven't really thought about the
>> difference between until this thread came up...
>
>
> That's a problem for various non-native speakers (me included eheh)
>
> This should be an opportunity to make som
parking=* requires amenity=parking.
That seems entirely redundant to me, and if I were king, I'd strip out
amenity=parking.
(the whole parking scheme needs re-design to integrate the various
schemes currently in place).
- Serge
___
Tagging mailing list
2012/1/11 Michael Krämer
> To be honest I haven't really thought about the
> difference between until this thread came up...
That's a problem for various non-native speakers (me included eheh)
This should be an opportunity to make some changes in syntax and semantics
[1] of OSM.
We should sta
What about tourism=artwork? Art really has not much to do with tourism
(also tourism=zoo seems odd, would maybe better in leisure?).
cheers,
Martin
___
Tagging mailing list
Tagging@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
> Anyway, this is partly just fussing about the mismatch between natural
> language and a more formal language, I guess.
Plus some fuzziness due to translation or non-native speakers trying
to transfer terms of their native language into English. Added the
fact that English often has two words whe
On 1/11/2012 10:26 AM, John Sturdy wrote:
Likewise, there are many lake-like or pond-like things that are
clearly not natural, but don't really match my understanding of the
term "reservoir". (Perhaps more of them should be "basin"s? But
those seem fairly specific.)
The way I see it, the wate
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:42 AM, sabas88 wrote:
> Take the examples of dentist and prison, they
> aren't "pleasant" (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/amenity) :)
Perhaps "facility" would be a better word for such things?
There are some tags I'd very much like to see changed, but I've held
2012/1/11 Frederik Ramm
>
> I find it a bit harsh that you complain about amenity=dentist when others
> languish in an amenity=prison.
>
I laughed hard, I didn't noticed it :D
2012/1/11 Martin Koppenhoefer
>
> nobody stops you from using other keys then "amenity", some people
> already do it
2012/1/10 sabas88 :
> For instance the discussion could start with a simple case: healthcare.
> Now the health facilities are tagged in amenity (when I go to the dentist
> I'm not happy as I would be in a bar!), but (in my dream world :) ) they
> should deserve a seperate key: I found two proposals
Hi,
On 01/10/12 18:02, sabas88 wrote:
Now the health facilities are tagged in amenity (when I go to the
dentist I'm not happy as I would be in a bar!)
I find it a bit harsh that you complain about amenity=dentist when
others languish in an amenity=prison.
Bye
Frederik
_
On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 18:02:23 +0100, sabas88 wrote:
> Hi list,
> I want to suggest a topic of discussion not often considered: planning a
> more rational tagging system to be applied onto the existing data and for
> the future.
Stefano,
you know I fully support you. We started a similar thread on
12 matches
Mail list logo
