A short definition is great but I think the wiki page could use a little more explanation *after* the definition, e.g. some examples, references to supporting sources like wikipedia. I also think that it is worth mentioning and linking to pertinent mail archive threads on the use of the tag as it help gives some context.
As a new tagger I was confused about its use and I'd like to take a stab at improving the wiki. I'm not talking about a wholesale change. I like the wikipedia definition: *amenities* are any tangible or intangible benefits of a property, especially those that increase its attractiveness or value or that contribute to its comfort or convenience. I'll post something definitive out in a few days. -- Sean On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:53, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer <dieterdre...@gmail.com>wrote: > 2010/10/21 Sean Horgan <seanhor...@gmail.com>: > > The definition of such a tag/key that is so common the database (3+% > > according to taginfo: http://taginfo.openstreetmap.de/keys/amenity), > needs > > more than a single line definition. > > > Why? The shorter the definition, the better. The definitions should be > precise and contain the needed definition, but not more. Often there > are longish key definitions that explain a certain usecase and > therefore restrain unneededly the use of keys/tags. Also examples > should not be contained in the definitions IMHO (they can go in an > example section but the definition shouldn't need them). > > cheers, > Martin > > _______________________________________________ > Tagging mailing list > Tagging@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging >
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
